Proceedings o&%
CONFERENCE (3!il|EI!rHE MANAGEMENT
OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES
FEDERAL
PUBLICATION
November 27-29, 1984
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Biosphere Reserve
Gatlinburg, Tennessee
Citation:
Peine, John D. (ed.). 1985. Proceedings of the Conference on the Management of
Biosphere Reserves, November 27-29, 1984, Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
Gatlinburg, Tennessee. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Uplands Field Research Laboratory, Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
Gatlinburg, Tennessee. 207 pp.
Editor's Note:
These Proceedings contain original material of many authors. No material is to be
reprinted without prior permission from its author. The opinions of the authors do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Park Service or the UNESCO-MAB
Secretariat.
Copies of this publication are available from:
Uplands Field Research Laboratory
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Biosphere Reserve
Route 2, Box 260
Gatlinburg, Tennessee USA 37738
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
CONFERENCE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES
Held at the Sheraton Gatlinburg Hotel
Gatlinburg, Tennessee
November 27-29, 1984
Conference Host:
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Biosphere Reserve
Cosponsors:
UNESCO MAB Secretariat
Canadian National Committee for Man and the Biosphere
United States National Committee for Man and the Biosphere
National Parks and Conservation Association
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
The Southern Appalachian Research and Resource Management Cooperative
Program Planning Committee:
John D. Peine, Chairman
Donald P. Brown Bernie Lieff
Harold K. Eidsvik Paul S. Pritchard
William P. Gregg, Jr. Roland H. Wauer
Robert C. Haraden
Edited by
John D. Peine
Uplands Field Research Laboratory
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Bisophere Reserve
Gatlinburg, Tennessee 37738
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The conference was hosted by the Great Smoky Mountains National Park Biosphere
Reserve and was supported by the following cosponsors:
UNESCO MAB Secretariat
Canadian National Committee for Man and the Biosphere
United States National Committee for Man and the Biosphere
National Parks and Conservation Association
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
The Southern Appalachian Research and Resource Management Cooperative
In the year prior to the conference, a committee was formed to establish the scope,
objectives, and format for the conference and to select the speakers. This committee
included William Gregg, Jr., Co- Chairman of the U.S. MAB Project Directorate on
Biosphere Reserves; Harold Eidsvik, Chairman, IUCN Commission on National Parks
and Protected Areas, and Senior Policy Advisor, Parks Canada; Bernie Lieff ,
Superintendent, Waterton Lakes National Park Biosphere Reserve (Canada); Donald
Brown, Superintendent, Isle Royale National Park Biosphere Reserve (U.S.); Roland
Wauer, Assistant Superintendent, Great Smoky Mountains National Park Biosphere
Reserve (U.S.); Robert Haraden, Superintendent, Glacier National Park Biosphere
Reserve (U.S.); and Paul Pritchard, President, National Parks and Conservation
Association. John Peine, Research Director, Uplands Field Research Laboratory, Great
Smoky Mountains National Park Biosphere Reserve, served as chairman of the
conference and editor of the proceedings. Mr. Wauer coordinated the poster session and
audiovisual program. The staff of the Uplands Field Research Laboratory worked
behind the scenes to keep things running smoothly. Without the dedicated support and
assistance of these agencies, organizations, and individuals, the conference would have
not been possible.
CONTENTS
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
Synopsis of the Conference on the Management of Biosphere Reserves
- - John D. Peine and John M. Morehead 1
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Biosphere Reserves in Concept and in Practice - - Harold K. Eidsvik 8
The Biological Resources of Biosphere Reserves — Arturo Gomez- Pompa .... 20
The Role and the Value of the 1984 Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves
- - Richard BUI 25
Bilateral Application of the MAB Concept - - H. Gilbert Lusk 30
THE UNITED STATES MAN AND THE BIOSPHERE PROGRAM
Biosphere Reserves in the United States: Protected Areas for Information
and Cooperation - - William P. Gregg, Jr. 36
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Biosphere Reserves and Regional Coordination - - John D. McCrone 46
Public Communication and Development of a Conservation Ethic
- Gabriel J. Cherem 53
Objectives and Nature of Scientific Programs in Biosphere Reserves
- - Jerry F. Franklin . 57
Resource Management in Biosphere Reserves - - Roland H. Wauer 67
WORKSHOPS ON MANAGEMENT ISSUES
AIR POLLUTANTS
The Sky Has No Limits: Air Pollution and Biosphere Reserves
- - Molly N. Ross 81
Air Pollution and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
- Boyd Evison 95
Air Pollution Workshop Summary
- David Silsbee and Christopher Eagar 103
DEVELOPMENT OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES
Extraction of Nonrenewable Resources in Biosphere Reserves: An
Opportunity to Meet the Needs of Man and Nature - - Thomas W. Lucke 106
Development of Nonrenewable Resources and Glacier National Park Biosphere
Reserve - - Robert C. Haraden Ill
Development of Nonrenewable Resources Workshop Summary
— - Mark Alston 117
USE OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES
Biosphere Reserves of the Man and Biosphere Program in Support of
Sustained- Yield Forest Management — Stanley L. Krugman 119
The Paradox of Repeating Error: Yellowstone National Park from 1872
to Biosphere Reserve and Beyond - - Robert D. Barbee and John D. Varley . . 125
Use of Renewable Resources Workshop Summary — Peter S. White 131
PROBLEM SPECIES
Management of Problem Species in Biosphere Reserves
— Michael A. Ruggiero 137
Problem Species in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Biosphere Reserve
— David B. Ames and Charles P. Stone 142
Problem Species Workshop Summary — David B. Ames 150
APPENDIX 153
SYNOPSIS OF THE CONFERENCE
ON THE MANAGEMENT OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES
John D. Peine1 and John M. Morehead.2
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park Biosphere Reserve hosted a conference for
the managers of biosphere reserves on November 27-29, 1984. Cosponsors included the
UNESCO- MAB Secretariat, the Canadian National Committee for Man and the
Biosphere, the United States National Committee for Man and the Biosphere, the
National Parks and Conservation Association, the National Park Service (U.S.), the
USDA Forest Service and the Southern Appalachian Research and Resource
Management Cooperative. A large number of biosphere reserve managers met to
discuss the multiple roles of biosphere reserves. Prior to this meeting, the biosphere
reserve program had emerged primarily as a scientific initiative; it was time to bring
the full spectrum of the program to the attention of the managers of the designated
areas.
In general, the managers that came to the conference did not necessarily relate to the
biosphere reserve program. When asked, "What is a biosphere reserve?" and "What are
its management implications?", more often than not there was an uncomfortable
shuffling of feet, a pause in the voice and a perplexed look on the face. Clearly, the
program did not have a well-defined and understood image. Strong testament to this
was the running joke carried throughout the conference about the Man and the
Biosphere (MAB) dedication plaques at the various reserves. Some managers didn't even
know where their plaques were. Others indicated that the plaque was the only visible
sign of the program. One manager even displayed a rag when he addressed the group,
claiming that he used it to keep his plaque polished.
This expressed confusion about the intent and opportunity of the biosphere reserve
program was exactly what the conference sought to address. The conference drew an
interesting cross-section of participants. Along with representatives from 27 biosphere
reserves in North America and six foreign countries, a variety of other interested
groups were represented. These included non-profit conservation groups; legislative
specialists, teachers, scientists, and news media; and a few private citizens
participating in biosphere reserve programs. This mixture of divergent perspectives
nourished a productive dialog throughout the conference.
The focus of the program was decidedly and deliberately oriented to the managers of
biosphere reserve areas administered by the U.S. National Park Service. Seventy-five
percent of the represented reserves are administered by the NPS.
The Biosphere Reserve Concept
William P. Gregg, Jr., Co- Chairman of the U.S. MAB Project Directorate on Biosphere
Reserves, defined the concept thoroughly. First, a biosphere reserve is symbolism to
"put knowledge and human cooperation to work to build harmonious relationships
between people and their environment." A biosphere reserve ideally consists of four
Research Director* , Uplands Field Research Laboratory, Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, and Superintendent^, Everglades National Park,
Homestead, Florida
zones; a large core zone of protection for a self-sustaining ecosystem representative of
one of the world's 193 biogeographic provinces as defined by UNESCO, a buffer zone
with manipulation or experimentation, a zone for restoration, and a fourth stable
cultural zone where indigenous people live in harmony with the environment. Gregg
capsulated the biosphere reserve management concept as follows: "The watchword is
integration . . . integration of functions at the site: monitoring, experimental research,
resource management, demonstration, professional training, public education . . .
integration to build a model for sustainable conservation of a particular natural region
. . . integration of activities at different levels to help solve problems locally,
regionally, and internationally . . . integration through cooperation within the
management team at each site, between the staffs of nearby sites, between managers
and local people, and between professionals in different institutions and countries."
As yet, there are no working examples reflecting the total scope of this ideal
perspective, but several exciting efforts associated with various elements of it are
underway and were discussed during the conference.
International Perspective
The first day of the conference focused on the international perspective. A provocative
address by Harold Eidsvik, Senior Policy Advisor, Parks Canada, set the stage well.
Eidsvik traced the evolution of wildland conservation and management from mere
designation to internal patrol and a growing active internal management practice. The
biosphere reserve marks the beginning of a new era where internal activity is integrated
with external influencing factors to provide for a holistic management perspective.
Eidsvik proposed to dispel a myth about biosphere reserves, that they represent a new
global network of ecosystem preserves. Most reserves were in fact protected by some
other system prior to designation as a biosphere reserve. Eidsvik pointed out that the
national park concept has been evolving for over 100 years, while biosphere reserves
have evolved only during the past ten years. He then issued a direct challenge to the
managers in the audience:
"America provided the impetus to the global system of national parks.
I suggest that in the socio- economic field this leadership is faltering.
Many new national parks have been designated around the world, but
unfortunately, few of these are effectively managed to achieve
conservation objectives. The biosphere reserve is a new management
tool which can help to reinforce and ensure the achievement of
traditional national park values through increased cooperation of
managers and local people. The question is, will America once again
accept the challenge and provide leadership in conservation? A system
of well selected and managed biosphere reserves is a mechanism for
doing so. This is not the 1976 concept of biosphere reserves where 29
reserves consisting only of core areas were created at the stroke of
a pen. It is an evolving process, full of challenges."
Richard Bill from the UNESCO Secretariat Division of Ecology and Science in Paris
presented an action plan for biosphere reserves, subsequently adopted by the
International Coordinating Council of the Program on Man and the Biosphere at its
eighth session in Paris, December 3-8, 1984. This action plan is included in the
appendix of this proceedings and is a must reading for all biosphere reserve managers.
Arturo Gomez- Pompa, Chairman, MAB-Mexico, provided valuable insights into the
UNESCO organization and the global agenda for the MAB program.
The international component of the program was capped with an exciting illustration of
the full potential of the biosphere reserve concept. Mike Flemming, Resource
Management Specialist, Big Bend National Park, presented Gil Lusk's paper on the
potential for an international biosphere reserve incorporating Big Bend National Park
and an adjacent portion of the Chihuahuan Desert in Mexico. Flemming pointed out
that the idea of an international preserve is not new but has not progressed primarily
because it has been broached in the context of becoming a national park in the
traditional sense. An exclusionary policy is not compatible with the needs of society in
the states of Chihuahua and Coahuila, Mexico. The innovative plans presented for
utilizing the biosphere reserve concept to bring the desired conservation ethic to a
suitable fruition represents a positive response to Eidsvik's challenge. Perhaps we do
have it in us to step out of our conventional agency modes to meet this new challenge!
The United States MAB Program
Bill Gregg eloquently portrayed the spirit and symbolism of MAB, which is probably its
single most valuable dimension. He traced the evolution of the program in the United
States. Originally, large conservation areas were paired with experimental research
sites in the same biogeographic region. Now a systematic selection process is underway
to expand and consolidate the network in 25 terrestrial and 13 coastal regions.
Presently, the U.S. has 41 of the 273 biosphere reserves located in 65 countries around
the world. In the U.S., 22 are administered by the National Park Service and 15 others
by the U.S. Forest Service. Gregg discussed a variety of ways that MAB can help
managers. The U.S. MAB, for instance, can help foster regional and international
cooperation. They can act as a catalyst for conferences and workshops such as this
one. They can help make public education programs more relevant to environmental
issues. Limited funding is available to act as seed money to promote projects important
to MAB, but possibly not in the mainstream of agency priorities. Gregg expressed hope
that this funding source may greatly expand in the near future.
Management Activities
The third segment of the first day of the conference focused on tying key management
practices to the goals of the biosphere reserve program. Possibly the most important
concept to initiate, and probably the most difficult and time- consuming to employ, is
the mobilization of regional constituency groups to support biosphere reserve
programs. John McCrone, Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, Western Carolina
University, presented a variety of examples of how these linkages have been
accomplished at various biosphere reserves. The diversity of approaches is
extraordinary. There is no particular best method, other than to capitalize on existing
networks relevant to priority biosphere reserve activities.
In order for the group mobilization discussed by McCrone to become a persuasive force,
the manager must effectively communicate the relevant MAB messages. Gabriel
Cherem, President, Interp Central, Inc. presented several key concepts for clearly
communicating conservation values. He advocated producing a clear identity for
biosphere reserves and suggested various ways to image that identity to target
audiences. The image should be provocative and relevant to the individual's own life.
He outlined the need for systematic communications planning and introduced a new
concept for community wide communication.
Cherem's talk was given at lunch on the first day and an interesting tool was applied to
demonstrate the power of effective communication during that event. Local school
children had prepared artwork and poetry on what the biosphere reserves meant to
them, and their materials were displayed at the luncheon in the form of placemats. The
receivers of the mats sent attached self-addressed postcards back to the children,
expressing their appreciation and frequently offering mementos from their home
biosphere reserves. This exercise proved to be an impressive display of the power of
effective, if unorthodox, communication.
Scientific programs are a central focus of MAB in the U.S. and elsewhere. Jerry
Franklin, Director, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, described the
special role of research in biosphere reserves. He urged all reserve managers to initiate
long- term research and monitoring projects that focus on ecosystem descriptive and
process studies. He called for systematic data management, increased field support for
scientists and better interaction with other biosphere reserves. Research should
provide managers with the information needed to preserve native genetic diversity
while allowing long-term resource utilization by man.
Social science has an equally important role in supporting the Man and the Biosphere
Program. Communications, environmental education, social behavior, economics,
community services, ethnobiology and so on are all vital social science fields that apply
to biosphere reserve programs. Almost all of the research performed in biosphere
reserves today is in the natural sciences. Much of it focuses on the effects of man on
natural ecosystems. Yet science in biosphere reserves has all but ignored people from a
social perspective. The seven social scientists who attended the conference, led by
Donald R. Field, Senior Social Scientist, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Oregon State
University, all agreed on the need for a more balanced scientific emphasis for the
biosphere reserve system to realize its potential for attaining a global conservation
ethic.
Roland Wauer, Assistant Superintendent, Resources Management and Science, Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, discussed the importance of resource management in
biosphere reserves. He defined resource management as any activity related to
maintaining or achieving a given ecological condition in accordance to the area's
management objectives. He advocated the development of a resource management plan
that succinctly presents the resource issues and priorities for action in management,
monitoring and research. Adequate information tracking and personal training were
also emphasized. Wauer stressed that effective resource management must include
strong emphasis in education, training, and demonstration. His presentation provided a
good summary of the first day's messages.
Workshops on Management Issues
The following morning, the conference attendees broke into five work groups to discuss
the application of the biosphere reserve concept to specific management issues common
in North American biosphere reserves. Two co-chairpersons were selected to lead each
workshop- a resource specialist with expert knowledge on the issue being discussed and
the manager of a prominent biosphere reserve where the issue is important. The
resource specialist first gave a background paper on the issue; then the manager
summarized the circumstances of the issue at his biosphere reserve site. Group
discussion followed to explore how the MAB program could best be applied to the issue
at hand. No standard format was used in conducting the group discussions. An
unanticipated occurrence in all the workshop discussions was the inordinate amount of
time spent reviewing the various functions of the MAB program and the various land use
zones of the biosphere reserve concept. Again, the need to better define the program
and image the concept was clearly demonstrated.
Air Pollutants Workshop. Molly Ross, Air and Water Quality Division, National Park
Service, gave a thorough overview of the U.S. Clean Air Act and the manager's role in
the regulation of air quality, a most complicated topic. Boyd Evison, Superintendent,
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Biosphere Reserve, described the air pollution
research program underway at his area. The Sequoia- Kings Canyon research effort
stands as an excellent example of how research interests can be coordinated and their
effect magnified following the principles espoused by John McCrone.
The workshop discussion focused on expanding the scope of research to a regional and
global context due to the biosphere reserve status. The site serves as an important
early warning system for adverse pollution effects. Although mentioned as important,
the session did not focus on public education. Some suggested that the present strategy
at Sequoia- Kings Canyon should incorporate education in order to reflect Gregg and
Wauer's call for balance.
Development of Nonrenewable Resources Workshop. Thomas Lucke, Chief, Branch of
Water Resources, National Park Service, threw out one of the most intriguing
challenges at the conference. Lucke suggested that biosphere reserves, "where mining
and preservation coexist, can serve as experiment stations in which processes and
procedures can be developed to integrate conservation and development. These
concepts could then be exported so that extraction, no matter where it occurred, would
actively be accomplished in an environmentally sound manner." A tall order to say the
least, but this is what MAB is all about. Robert Haraden, Superintendent, Glacier
National Park, followed with a discussion of the situation at the cluster of three
biosphere reserves- Glacier National Park, Coram Experimental Forest and Waterton
Lakes Biosphere Reserves- where adjacent strip mining and oil drilling are both
pending. These three areas have been recommended for redesignation as the Rocky
Mountain International Biosphere Reserve. The issues here are greatly complicated by
international dissension, but on the other hand this potential linkage also holds the
greatest promise for solution. These biosphere reserves represent the best examples of
successful MAB programs in North America; they were so recognized through awards
presented at the conference banquet to Bernie Lieff , Superintendent, Waterton Lakes
National Park, and Robert Haraden. Lieff has established a Biosphere Reserve
Management Committee focusing primarily on the ranching community. Haraden is
expanding his coordinative role via a regional committee as well. As Haraden stated,
these MAB programs are "new, evolving and managers are still trying to determine how
to incorporate them in their existing mandates." This sentiment could easily be
expressed about MAB programs at any of the 41 biosphere reserves in North America.
The workshop discussion highlighted the need for education to further the MAB
concept. The need to look beyond the core unit boundaries and involve the people
living in a zone of cooperation was also emphasized. It was suggested that in order to
develop positive ties with the mining industry, we should find a way to divest the
posture of "me- versus- they ." The group challenged managers to provide leadership in
these uncharted relationships by utilizing the principles of MAB.
Use of Renewable Resources Workshop. Stanley Krugman, Director, Timber
Management Research, USDA Forest Service, and Co- Chairman of the US MAB Project
Directorate on Biosphere Reserves, was unable to attend the conference. Therefore, no
resource presentation was made for this workshop, but his paper is included in the
proceedings. Robert Barbee, Superintendent of the Yellowstone National Park
Biosphere Reserve, described the Yellowstone situation which includes conflicts outside
the Park, such as the mining of thermal resources and the activities of ungulates and
predators (grizzly bear). As the conference unfolded, Barbee became aware that many
of his actions as a manager were right in line with the intentions of MAB. He was a
good MAB program manager and didn't know it! He also saw the advantage of applying
the MAB concept to help image the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem as a vehicle to
establish a management/research cooperative with neighboring land managers.
Barbee divided his work group into sub-groups and assigned topics similar to those
presented on the first day: research and monitoring, education and training, public
involvement, and resource management. This arrangement resulted in a well balanced
perspective.
Problem Species Workshop. Michael Ruggiero, Regional Chief Scientist of the National
Park Service's Midwest Region, outlined the steps for controlling exotic species through
integrated pest management. David Ames, Superintendent, Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park Biosphere Reserve, described the extraordinary steps taken in his park to control
exotic plant species and eliminate feral ungulates that were recently considered an
unsolvable problem. The research and management at Hawaii Volcanoes is closely
coordinated and they have initiated some intriguing programs in public education.
The workshop discussion emphasized education and research. How do you image the
biosphere reserve concepts? School children were identified as a key target audience.
An innovative idea was to construct exclosures off -site so that other land managers
could see the adverse effects of feral ungulates.
Visitor Activities Workshop. Donald Field outlined the principles of visitor carrying
capacity, from both a social and biological impact perspective. He offered a strategy
to make judgments on visitor management to preserve an established carrying capacity
standard. Donald Brown, Superintendent, Isle Royale National Park Biosphere Reserve,
outlined the steps taken in Isle Royale to monitor visitor use impacts on native fauna
and flora. He described how the design of facilities has minimized impact in areas of
high user concentration. The policy of closing sections of the park completely where
the wolves are active was also discussed. The workshop discussion focused on the
monitoring of both biological and social impacts and providing adequate public
education. Documentations for this workshop are not included in this proceedings.
Field Trips
After the workshops, the attendees were offered a choice of field trips in the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park Biosphere Reserve- to high elevation spruce- fir forest
experiencing severe decline, virgin deciduous forests, stream ecosystems, the park's
historic district, and the Uplands Field Research Laboratory, where the research staff
discussed and explained the practical benefits of more than two dozen research
projects. These field trips were well attended and allowed the participants to compare
notes and ask further questions.
Banquet
At the banquet, Paul Pritchard, President of the National Parks and Conservation
Association, a non-profit organization, provided a fresh perspective of the MAB
program from the "outside looking in." His enthusiasm for the MAB program was
infectious.
CONCLUSIONS
On the last morning of the conference, the workshop chairpersons summarized the
results of their workshops. At lunch, John Morehead, Superintendent, Everglades
National Park, captured the spirit that the conference attendees had shared. Morehead
stressed that the existing U.S. biosphere reserve areas are not a good representation of
the MAB program. The existing sites, essentially "core areas," need to be expanded;
other agencies need to be involved; and- perhaps most important of all- our own
on-site employees need to be made aware of the entire biosphere reserve concept and
program. Morehead also pointed out that the following themes kept recurring during
the formal presentations, workshop discussions, and summary remarks:
1. The MAB Biosphere Reserve Program needs identity and image.
2. Its greatest strength is its symbolism that can be conveyed through education.
3. An NPS agency- wide policy concerning MAB is vitally needed.
4. The research focus needs to be long-term and on an ecosystem level, with well
managed data and frequent comparison with other reserves.
5. Preserving genetic diversity should be a high resource management priority.
6. The extent to which traditional agency program functions can be "finessed" to
incorporate MAB concepts is best left up to the creativity and motivation of
the professional staff at each bisophere reserve.
7. Responsibility for the growth and direction of the MAB Program is squarely on the
shoulders of the biosphere reserve managers.
8. The enormous challenge to managers is to provide the progressive zeal to carry the
global conservation banner into the 21st century.
Appended to these proceedings are two lists which provide specific ideas for managers
of biosphere reserves. Harold Eidsvik offers job elements for managers (page 18) and
Bill Gregg provides action statements by various categories (pages 183 to 185).
Overall, the conference resulted in a lot of enthusiasm for the MAB Program. The
managers were inspired by the promise it holds. Let's hope some productive seeds were
sown so that the next time biosphere reserve managers get together, there will be a lot
of stiff competition for the best biosphere reserve manager award!
BIOSPHERE RESERVES IN CONCEPT AND IN PRACTICE
Harold K. Eidsvik1
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park Biosphere Reserve illustrates the two key
issues that we are here to consider, the management of biosphere reserves and the
management of national parks. It is a difficult comparison; in the one case we have 10
years of experience, and in the second, 100 years. In essence, it's something like
comparing an acorn and an oak tree.
National parks are into their second century, well established as a social invention. For
the first 44 years (1872-1916) they had no central management. Then in 1916 the
National Park Service was established.
Biosphere reserves have been with us for eight years — not a long time in the
development of a social invention. They grew out of an earlier UNESCO program, "The
International Biological Program." This program could be summarized as having too
much emphasis on science and not enough on man. From this background, the Man and
the Biosphere Program (MAB) was launched by UNESCO in 1972.
How will the biosphere reserve "acorn" look in 2084? Should we be deeply concerned
about how biosphere reserves are managed at this stage of their evolution? Are we
expecting too much from biosphere reserves? Are they a myth or a reality? I expect
that these questions will be addressed, if not answered, in the next few days.
From a global perspective, the Biosphere Reserve program exists in more than 66
countries. Some 266 biosphere reserves have been established (UNESCO, 1983). In
some countries such as Austria, Egypt, Kenya, Mexico and Honduras, biosphere reserves
are working to achieve conservation where national parks were not effective.
In reality, one global tool to achieve conservation does not exist. We must use many
tools; among them are national parks, strict nature sanctuaries and biosphere reserves,
to name but three. Of these, the biosphere reserve is the newest administrative tool
available to managers. Simply put, "A biosphere reserve is an internationally
designated protected area managed to demonstrate the value of conservation."
I have been a skeptic about biosphere reserves, but I am becoming less so. I see some
signs of success and believe that these examples will grow. As I mentioned earlier,
these are in Mexico, Austria, Kenya and Honduras.
In North America, biosphere reserves were imposed upon existing systems from the top
down, with little explanation of their purpose or function and little interaction with
local communities. To function properly they require local involvement. Without this
interaction they will not work. We have traditionally done well with national parks in
North America. However, I am not certain that our parks are performing in a dynamic
fashion, reflecting new scientific developments in ecosystem management and
integrating with society in a social and economic sense. In these aspects we are
faltering. Leadership is coming from places such as Kenya, Brazil and South Africa.
1 Chairman, Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, and Senior Policy
Advisor, Parks Canada
Tn many developing countries, socioeconomic factors are critical both for the existing
protected areas and new areas. Encroaching agricultural developments due to
demographic pressures are substantial. It is only when the essential protective function
of parks and reserves can be demonstrated and integrated with local economic
development that we will ensure their future.
1 believe that much remains to be done if biosphere reserves are to take their place as
an effective conservation tool.
In Canada, we have taken a "go slow" approach; only one of our 31 national parks is a
biosphere reserve and it is operating as a pilot project. The second biosphere reserve in
Canada, Mount St. Hillaire, is a university property. As a federal government, we have
deliberately moved slowly as we do not wish the biosphere reserve program to be
identified as a federal program. Natural resources are an area of provincial jurisdiction
in Canada and we wish to establish a direct link between the MAB program and the
provinces. Indications are that this is now beginning to work and I hope that we will
have the first provincially- declared biosphere reserve in the next year. In addition, we
are examining the possibility of this status for an additional national park.
BIOSPHERE RESERVES - THE MYTH AND THE REALITY
There is a lot of mythology surrounding biosphere reserves. As I see it, there are two
aspects to the myth. One is that biosphere reserves have created a new global network
of protected areas. The second is that biosphere reserves are a unique new method of
achieving conservation.
Under UNESCO's designation, "Biosphere Reserves" form a global network of
scientifically-oriented protected areas. They are UNESCO's principal network of
reserves. Other UNESCO-related designations, such as World Heritage Sites or
Wetlands, are linked to international treaty obligations. As entities they have legal
standing, whereas the biosphere reserve is still a moral concept. In all three cases the
international designation places a responsibility on governments to meet
internationally- imposed obligations. These obligations, I would suggest, ensure a higher
degree of consideration by governments for conservation values than normally exist on
non- internationally designated areas. The choice remains national, but once made
there is an imposition of a broader consideration- international values.
Some 82 percent of all biosphere reserves were established on the existing network of
national parks (Miller 1983). The reality is simple- there is a global network; however,
this network is based on affiliation with other established protected areas. The myth is
that biosphere reserves have created a new and unique network. The reality is that
biosphere reserves are re- enforcing established conservation areas. However, in some
special cases, such as Mexico and Honduras, the biosphere reserves are unique and new.
So, one part of the myth is destroyed. Biosphere reserves are not a unique global
system of protected areas. A reality remains, biosphere reserves are UNESCO's
designated global system of protected areas. The objective is to have a comprehensive
system covering all biogeographic provinces. For global scientific monitoring, this is
most desirable.
While biosphere reserves do not represent the only system of protected areas, they do
contribute significantly to the planning of a global network. Concepts of biogeographic
classification were evolving at the same time biosphere reserves were coming to the
forefront. Under the general aegis of UNESCO's MAB program, Dasmann and Udvardy
10
developed a global classification system based on botanical and zoogeographical
principles of realms, biomes and biographic provinces (IUCN 1975). These provide a
foundation for assessing the global adequacy of protected area coverage. The system
provides the foundation for UNESCO's concern about a "representative system of
protected areas" on a global scale, a basis for a global overview. Such a system also
provides a foundation for a global monitoring program.
At the sub-global, national, or macro- regional level, subsystems of biogeographical
classification provide a scientific foundation for the selection of national parks and
related protected areas. There exist for the United States and Canada national park
systems plans. Similar systems plans have been developed in the Nordic countries
(Pahlsson 1983), in South Africa (Huntley 1982), in New Zealand and in several other
countries. These subsystems are essential for determining the effectiveness of national
conservation networks. They are too detailed for global purposes.
The scientific work of UNESCO's MAB program has contributed considerably toward
defining a global foundation for the selection of protected areas. The production of
vegetation and soils maps at a global scale and the work of the U.S. Biosphere Reserve
program on selection methodology are examples.
To sum up, the reality is that biosphere reserves belong to a particular group of
protected areas given international stature by UNESCO. Secondly, UNESCO has
advanced the science of biogeography as a foundation for establishing a representative
global network of protected areas.
The second aspect of the myth is that biosphere reserves were a unique new method of
achieving conservation. This is not the case, since 82 percent of the biosphere reserves
exist over some other previously designated area (Miller 1983). However, the potential
is there and we need to build a new reality based on the fact that biosphere reserves
emphasize the need for a sound scientific foundation for management. This implies a
strong research program. Secondly, they emphasize cooperation through local, regional
and international networks. In this way they reinforce existing protected area
activities. This was well demonstrated in the 1980 U.S. Study of Threats to the
National Parks.
New Directions
About this point in time some of you will say,"That's interesting, but really, what is a
biosphere reserve?" Literally tons of papers have been circulated about the subject,
and this paper will add more. I am not certain that these papers have either removed
the myth or built the reality. So, rather than look at the past on what I call "instant
biosphere reserves" (a new label on a national park), I would prefer to look to the future
and see if we can build a new reality.
What does the new reality consist of? What does it mean to the manager?
Table 1 is an attempt to outline the differences between biosphere reserves and
national parks. In many cases, they are so similar it is difficult to be precise about
differences. The table emphasizes areas of relative difference.
Under today's criteria, a biosphere reserve should not exist if it consists only of a core
area, such as a national park or a national forest research station. Such a biosphere
reserve leads only to more confusion about the role of the reserve compared to the role
of the area upon which it has been superimposed. In my view, the U.S. designation of 29
11
national parks as biosphere reserves in 1976 could be looked upon as an overly
enthusiastic response to a new program. Having said that, the national parks still have
an important role to play as core areas for biosphere reserves.
Just as the role of the National Park Service has evolved to include recreation areas,
urban parks and historic sites, so must the role of the biosphere reserve evolve. Just as
the utilitarian role of the national forests have evolved to incorporate wilderness areas
without logging, mining and mechanized tourism, so must the role of the biosphere
reserve evolve.
Globally, national parks are seen by some developing nations as a form of
neocolonialism- an exclusive dedication of resources for an exclusive group in society.
The new reality requires a closer linkage of benefits to local people, and for them a
greater voice in management. (This must be done for national parks as well as for
biosphere reserves.) At the same time, the scientific foundation for conservation and
education outreach programs must be reinforced.
TABLE 1
Comparative Data
Biosphere Reserves* National Parks
• roughly 10 years of age • more than 100 years of age
• internationally designated • nationally designated
• part of a global system • based on scenic and recreational
(biogeographic distribution) values
• protection - a moral obligation • protection - a legal commitment
• no existing management • have existing management
structure structure
• a management philosophy • a management category
• cooperative approach • regulatory approach
• emphasis on science, research • emphasis on protection,
and education recreation and education
• link to sustainable use (World • island philosophy - tendency to
Conservation Strategy- core isolation within fixed
zone equals protection; boundaries; insular
surrounding lands - integration;
82% relate to other protected
areas re core zone (affiliated
areas))
• local advisory committees • some local advisory groups
• more complicated to establish • less complicated to establish
• stewardship and sustainable use • stewardship
• more extensive monitoring • less monitoring
*A Biosphere Reserve is an internationally designated protected area managed to
demonstrate the values of conservation.
12
America provided the impetus to the global system of national parks. I have suggested
that in the socioeconomic field this leadership is faltering. Many new national parks
have been designated around the world, but unfortunately, few of these are effectively
managed to achieve conservation objectives. The biosphere reserve is a new
management tool which can help to reinforce and ensure the achievement of traditional
national park values through increased cooperation of managers and local people. The
question is, will America once again accept the challenge and provide leadership in
conservation? A system of well selected and managed biosphere reserves is a
mechanism for doing so. This is not the 1976 concept of biosphere reserves, where
29 reserves consisting only of core areas were created at the stroke of a pen (UNESCO,
1983). It is an evolving process, full of challenges.
Today's challenge is, how can we best achieve conservation in this complex world of
ours? The World Conservation Strategy provides a useful starting point:
"Conservation is the management of human use of the biosphere
so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present
generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and
aspirations of future generations. Thus conservation is positive,
embracing preservation, maintenance, sustainable utilization,
restoration, and enhancement of the natural environment" (IUCN, 1980).
The key words which need emphasis with respect to biosphere reserves, are that
conservation includes preservation, maintenance, sustainable utilization, restoration
and enhancement of the natural living environment. As with the "multiple use"
principle, all of these activities cannot occur in the same place but they can be
coordinated.
There remains a perception that national parks are frozen in time. We have failed to
communicate the message that they are a necessity, not a luxury. Linking the
management of national parks to the management of surrounding lands through the
Biosphere Reserve Program is one way of expanding the image of a national park as a
mechanism for delivering more broadly- based conservation or social benefits. The
integrity of the park remains intact as the core of a biosphere reserve. The image
changes because the park is now linked to a broader concept of conservation which
involves adjacent land management.
Many national park managers will say that they already have strong linkages to adjacent
landowners and community organizations. I would suggest, however, that most of our
national parks are prevented from spending their funds on other than national park
lands. Most of our park managers have a "frontier" or internally- oriented management
approach. I believe those that do not are the exceptions rather than the rule. I hasten
to add that this is still often the case for biosphere reserves, as currently structured. I
believe it is easier to bring about innovation with a new concept than it is with a
traditional concept.
A second perspective from the World Conservation Strategy lends more emphasis to the
role of conservation:
"Conservation, like development, is for people; while development aims to
achieve human goals largely through use of the biosphere, conservation aims
to achieve them by ensuring that such use can continue. Conservation's
concern for maintenance and sustainability is a rational response to the
nature of living resources (renewability and destructibility) and also an ethical
imperative, expressed in the belief that 'we have not inherited the earth from
our parents, we have borrowed it from our children' " (IUCN, 1980).
13
The stewardship role expressed in the last sentence has always been explicit in the
national park ethic and it remains so with biosphere reserves. Finally, we have three
objectives for conservation:
- To maintain essential ecological processes and life support systems.
- To preserve genetic diversity.
- To ensure the sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems (WCS).
The first two objectives have been explicit in the national park ethic. The third,
"sustainable utilization," carries connotations beyond those of the national park — it is
more applicable to biosphere reserves. It does, however, incorporate the protection of
watersheds and the use of the area for tourism and genetic conservation as specialized
forms of utilization. It is in this context that the term should be applied to national
parks.
There is uncertainty and, for some, fear in bringing about change. But without change
there is a danger of becoming obsolete. The Biosphere Reserve Program represents
change.
In considering their role in relation to that of national parks, I have taken a brief look
at the evolution of national parks over the last 100 years. I have divided this time into
four periods which I have called preservation, protection, management and integrated
management (Figure 1).
Preservation
In North America the preservation period began with the setting aside of large blocks of
wild land in the west, to preserve them from alienation and speculation. Roughly from
1860 to 1911, largely looking after themselves because of their isolation, these areas
achieved conservation objectives by designation alone. No great bureaucracy was
required to look after them. Some areas are still in this state today: the Greenland
National Park and Biosphere Reserves; Ellesmere Island National Park Reserve; large
segments of Antarctica, and isolated parts of the Amazonian forest. Such opportunities
are becoming less frequent and more effort will be required to designate new areas in
the future.
Protection
Second comes the protection period, roughly 1911 to 1960. By protection I mean the
need to establish a protective force of wardens or rangers to guard the boundaries and
prevent trespass. They prevented the exploitation of wildlife (poaching), rangelands,
and timberlands in national parks. The force was primarily concerned with what went
on inside the boundary of the protected area. This style of operation is still prevalent
in many areas today. Some examples would be the Salonga National Park in Zaire,
Wood Buffalo in Canada, Denali in Alaska and Manu in Peru. The rules are pretty basic;
the scientific foundation is limited. It works well, provided the area is well buffered
and relatively isolated.
Management
In about 1960 several things began to happen. In North America, park visitations had
been exploding, Mission 66 was well underway and the Outdoor Recreation Resources
Review Commission was underway. In Africa there was a growing acceptance of the
need to cull large animal populations in Tsavo and Kruger National Parks (Owens,
1972).
14
LEGEND
X
w
.-J
o
u
H
u
M
H
w
M
o
en
1850
1872
1911/1916
1962
1976
1st N.P.
1st Park
ORRRC
1st Biosphere
Services
Reserve
Figure 1. Protected Areas - Evolving Relationships from
Isolation to Integration
15
Zoning as a means of allocating special uses to specific areas was evolving. In essence,
laissez-faire management was being challenged as the foundation for the future.
Management, however, remained focused on problems inside the fence.
Integrated Management
In most regions of the world, a wholistic view integrating internal and external
management issues has not yet arrived. It is perhaps the point at which we find
ourselves today. Under the broad philosophy that "no man is an island" we find
ourselves faced with a situation in which "our parks are managed as islands." Yet they
are islands subject to external threats- air, water, visual or noise pollution, and so on.
Some of these threats are imposed, some are controllable, and some are not
(hydroelectric power, water pollution, cattle grazing and swidden agriculture). We can
no longer be effective managers living in isolation.
If we are to work in an integrated fashion, we must think in an integrated fashion. I
suggest that splendid isolation under the preservation and protection concept is no
longer an option through which we can achieve conservation. Biosphere reserves can be
an important step toward integrated management. For example, biosphere reserves
reported "threats three times higher than other parks" (Machlis and Tichnell, 1984).
There are perhaps many reasons for this; I would suggest that a concern for integrated
management and a greater commitment to scientific research are the main ones.
Without a doubt new directions create uncertainty. What we need is to reduce the
uncertainty. Surely with science and technology, combined with an increasing
professionalism, we can move toward integrated management. This means a much
greater commitment to understanding our natural resource base, where it is today and
where it is going. It does not mean a snapshot in time called an inventory. It does
mean a continuing monitoring of habitats and species to ensure our heritage will be
intact for future generations. Obviously, some of this is being done now in most
national parks. In my view it requires reinforcement.
Integrated management means a greater management commitment on lands controlled
by national park managers. It also means a greater involvement with respect to lands
not controlled by them.
Here the Biosphere Reserve concept comes to the forefront. How do you break down
traditional barriers between "us and them," or from another perspective, the parks
people and their neighbours? Some may ask, "Why do you need biosphere reserves to do
this? As good park managers we do it now." My view on this is that as parks people we
tend more to insularity and less to integration.
I would venture to say that in most of our biosphere reserves, there is a realization that
some form of international designation exists. Beyond that the myth takes hold and the
reality fades. So, what does it mean to the local manager and to conservation in the
broader sense? I see a number of points that need touching:
1. There is still a lot of mumbo- jumbo about biosphere reserves. This needs to be
reduced. Traditionally, a biosphere reserve required a minimum of four zones:
a. a core natural zone,
b. a buffer zone of manipulation or experimentation,
c. a zone of restoration, and
d. a stable cultural zone.
16
The zoning has usually been observed more as the exception than the practice. My
colleagues at Waterton Glacier International Peace Park have suggested that what
we mean is not zoning but a new form of cooperation; cooperation that is central to
making integrated management work.
2. Secondly, within current standards a biosphere reserve cannot exist as a national
park alone- alone, in splendid isolation. It needs cooperation and integration with
surrounding lands. How to make this work effectively in the long term is the major
challenge for biosphere reserve managers.
3. In my particular world, we live in a federal system. It is difficult for the federal
park manager to work with provincial organizations without following the protocol
of Regional and Headquarters structures. Through broad representation a biosphere
reserve management committee can break down these barriers to communication.
The biosphere reserve includes federal, provincial/state, and private lands. A
biosphere reserve committee provides an open forum for discussion. Similar
concepts exist with national parks in New Zealand and France.
4. The biosphere reserve committee also provides a mechanism to review long-term
research needs. What are the problems- where are the potential solutions? Is it a
question of wildlife moving out of a confining ecosystem onto adjacent agricultural
lands? Is it a broader problem, such as insect infestation, which requires shared
information? No longer is the Park Superintendent alone or even dominant in the
decision process. A cooperative approach is needed, an approach which moves from
isolation to integration, an approach which removes some traditional barriers to
communications .
5. In a practical sense, if you manage a biosphere reserve, does the responsibility
appear in your job description? If not, why not? As a manager you have many
responsibilities; the biosphere reserve designation adds a few more. An example of
the responsibilities of the Superintendent of a biosphere reserve is appended to the
end of this paper. They require him to establish a coordinating committee, to
develop research priorities, to solicit funds, to link activities to adjacent biosphere
reserves, to communicate activities, to work with adjacent land owners, to organize
public events.
In this respect the manager is charged with making the concept work-in essence, to
remove the myth and to build the reality.
If we look at the global system of protected areas, the biosphere reserve does hold out
some potential. Not as a unique new mechanism but as another arrow in the
conservation quiver. Simply, it may work where nothing else does.
In closing, 1 would again like to move beyond our continental boundaries for a moment.
In the lesser developed countries national parks were linked to international tourism.
They were seen as the great generators of foreign exchange (Harroy, 1972). In some
countries they worked extremely well: Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda are examples.
The national parks were clearly in the national interest. Local people, however, often
were subjected to major social and economic disruption. They received few of the
benefits and none of the income. They saw the parks as serving an elite, a carry over of
colonialism. As population and economic pressures increased, the pressures on the
national parks increased.
17
By Unking the national parks to biosphere reserves it is possible to link conservation to
sustainable development and to serve the needs of national governments and local
people as well. To do this we need new approaches such as biosphere reserves. But
even more critical is the need to convince development agencies such as USAID, CIDA,
DANIDA and so on that conservation is a part of the development package- the part
that sustains the long-term provision of water for agriculture and ensures the
continuity of soils, genetic resources and species for future generations. More than
ever, the biosphere reserves need to be linked to a funding mechanism, such as the
"AID" programs.
In concluding, there is a need to strengthen the Biosphere Reserve Program and to
establish a number of model biosphere reserves that can demonstrate how the new wave
of conservation works. This will require an attitudinal shift by some members of our
constituency. It will require stronger commitments from governments particularly in
support of biosphere reserves in developing countries. It will require a shift toward
cooperative management in many of the existing biosphere reserves and it will require
the disolution of some existing biosphere reserves which cannot meet the existing
standards. Finally, there is no doubt that we will need to ensure adequate long-term
legal protection for all protected areas.
SUMMARY
In North America there remains considerable skepticism about the potential
effectiveness of biosphere reserves on the part of national park managers. To a great
extent this exists because 29 national parks were declared as biosphere reserves in 1976
without adequate consultation or consideration of the effect of such a designation.
During the past ten years, the process has begun to mature and the linkage between
"core areas" as national parks and adjacent lands is now seen as essential. To change
insular managers into integrative managers through cooperative advisory committees is
a major challenge for both the park manager and the adjacent land manager.
Biosphere reserves are seen as a new management tool in the conservation quiver.
Linkages to the World Conservation Strategy and sustainable development are critical
areas to be addressed. The recognition by AID agencies that conservation is a necessity
and not a luxury need to be reinforced so that adequate funding can be made available.
Differences between national parks and biosphere reserves are examined. It is clear
that even in the existing biosphere reserve/national parks, more attention has been paid
to research and scientific monitoring than is the case for national parks alone.
The process of wildland management is examined through four time periods and these
are related to concepts of preservation, protection, management and integrated
management. It is in the latter direction that biosphere reserve management is
moving. It will take time, but the biosphere acorn may yet mature into a mighty oak.
18
PORTION OF JOB DESCRIPTION FOR A NATIONAL PARK MANAGER
RELATING TO BIOSPHERE RESERVE
(Excerpted from a job description for the Superintendent,
Waterton Lakes National Park Biosphere Reserve, Canada)
Operate a National Park as an International Biosphere Reserve
Establish a Biosphere Reserve Coordinating Committee consisting of local ranchers,
other landowners and park staff with associate members from the academic community,
planning commission and other federal and provincial as well as municipal government
agencies.
With other Committee members and landowners in general, develop program priorities
for the biosphere reserve, including research subjects, requirements for information and
demonstration projects. These projects may take place both within the national park
and on surrounding lands- -private, provincially, state or federal (USA) controlled.
Solicit funds and expertise with Committee members for the continued operation of
biosphere reserve activities not funded by Parks Canada. This includes selling materials
as a non -governmental organization and encouraging other agencies to carry out
research in the reserve area under their funding programs.
Coordinate reserve activities with adjacent biosphere reserves. A coordinating
committee with several members from adjacent reserves has been set up to deal with
research proposals involving the different areas of jurisdiction.
Communicate results of biosphere reserve activities to landowners, regional agencies,
other biosphere reserves in the world, and the Canadian Office for UNESCO. Press
releases are made and the work of the reserve has been featured in newspapers in
Montana, Alberta and Maclean's magazine.
As a member of the Committee, work closely with provincial officials in Alberta and
British Columbia to include provincial lands in the reserve and to discuss concerns in
our mutual boundary areas. Provincial staff in forestry, fish and wildlife and provincial
parks are involved with the Committee and attend its meetings to discuss items of
mutual concern.
Represent Canada or Parks Canada at training sessions and symposia, both inside and
outside Canada, to explain the operation of the biosphere reserve.
Take the leading role in organizing public information events sponsored by the
Committee; included are public seminars on subjects of interest to the local ranching
community, field trips, bus tours of research facilities and displays on subjects of local
concern to be placed at public events such as rodeos and fairs.
19
REFERENCES
Cifuentes, Miguel, Craig MacFarland and Roger Morales. 1984. Strategic planning of
national or regional systems of biosphere reserves: a methodology and case study
from Costa Rica. Pp. 93-120 in UNESCO-UNEP, Conservation, Science, and Society.
UNESCO, Paris. 2 vols., 612 pp. plus annexes.
Croze. Harvey. 1984. Global monitoring and biosphere reserves. Pp. 361- 370 in
UNESCO-UNEP, Conservation, Science, and Society. UNESCO, Paris. 2 vols., 612
pp. plus annexes.
Halffter, Gonzalo. 1984. Biosphere reserves: the conservation of nature for man. Pp.
450-457 in UNESCO-UNEP, Conservation, Science, and Society. UNESCO, Paris. 2
vols., 612 pp. plus annexes.
Harroy, J earn Paul. 1972. An attempt at a global approach. In Hayez, World National
Parks, Progress and Opportunities.
Huntley, B. 1983. Conservation status of terrestrial ecosystems in southern Africa. In
CNPPA 22nd Working Session, Zimbabwe.
Machlis and Tichnell. 1984. Problems in paradise: an international survey of threats to
parks (manuscript.)
McKerchar, N. D. and P. R. Dingwall. 1984. Identifying the essential scientific needs
of protected area managers. Pp. 320-330 in UNESCO-UNEP, Conservation, Science
and Society. UNESCO, Paris. 2 vols., 612 pp. plus annexes.
Miller, K. R. 1984. Biosphere reserves and the global network of protected areas. In
Proceedings Minsk Biosphere Reserve Congress, in press (1984).
Owen, John. 1972. Management in national parks. In Hayez, World National Parks,
Progress and Opportunities.
Pahlsson, Lars. 1984. Reference areas with representative types of nature in the
Nordic countries and the proposed ECE system of representative ecological areas.
Pp. 233-241 in UNESCO-UNEP, Conservation, Science, and Society. UNESCO, Paris.
2 vols., 612 pp. plus annexes.
UNESCO. 1983. MAB Information System, Biosphere Reserves, Compilation 3,
September.
THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES
Arturo Gomez- Pompa*
Harvard Forest
A park whose flora and fauna are unknown and uncatalogued
can be compared to an excellent library whose books have no
titles, no authors, and no call numbers.
- - D. Janzen. The Nature Conservancy News 34(1): 24, 1984.
One of the major accomplishments of the MAB Programme of UNESCO has been the
creation of a new concept for the conservation of outstanding samples of natural
ecosystems with their biota: the biosphere reserves.
The principal outstanding features of this new concept are the following:
1 . The inclusion of research activities in the reserves as an essential part of their
objectives.
2. The recognition that the biological and ecological scientific community is
committed to biosphere reserves as they provide sites for research and for
demonstrating its application. It is important to stress the fact that the
implementation of the biosphere reserve concept is not only the responsibility of
the administrators of the reserves but of the scientific community as well.
3. The inclusion of a "buffer" zone for the development of pilot projects on the
management use of ecosystems and their resources.
4. The establishment of an additional "buffer" zone or "area of influence" in which
some research application could be demonstrated.
5. The fact that biosphere reserves form part of an international programme which
can foster cooperation from many scientists and institutions.
6. The fact that biosphere reserves propose an alternative system and concept for
conservation.
7. Man is an important and indispensable component of ecosystems.
Unfortunately, many biosphere reserves, once they have been established, have not
developed the originally envisaged activities. For this reason, they have not played the
role that they should have had in the international effort to conserve the world's
biological heritage.
The first efforts concentrated on establishing the international network. This was done
with great success, as there are now 226 biosphere reserves in the international
network, and new reserves are proposed each year.
^Permanent address: Instituto Nacional de Recursos Bioticos, Ap. Postal 63,
Xalapa, Ver., Mexico.
21
The effort that many countries have made to create biosphere reserves makes an
historical mark in the conservation- development paradigm. It is especially notable that
a great number of developing countries have enthusiastically contributed to this effort
and with what is most important: ideas.
It seems that the whole movement never passed to the next step of actually putting the
concept into practice. It is very badly needed. We have to identify what should be the
next step at the local and at the international coordinating level and to try to proceed
as effectively as possible.
This was fully recognized at the First International Biosphere Reserve Congress in
1983. The proposed Action Plan mentions the need to look for ways to further
implement the biosphere reserve concept.
Considering all these facts, it would appear necessary to design and develop an
international research programme that could provide the basic scientific information
needed to continue with the original idea of linking conservation, research and
development in the biosphere reserve network.
The need is even more urgent in developing countries, which desperately need research
on alternative management policies and practices and development plans for the benefit
of their rural people that can provide practicable sustainable techniques. Special
attention should be made on the available economic and human resources for such a
research programme on biosphere reserves.
There is a lack of examples of where biosphere reserves have succeeded in linking
conservation, research and development, not only in developing countries but in
developed countries as well. The result has been that arguments for such linkages are
generally theoretical and often not applicable in the field.
The reasons for this problem are many, and in most cases, these are related to an
inadequate knowledge of the resources of the reserves that we are trying to protect.
There is also a lack of adequate resource management plans, and above all, a lack of
good demonstration projects in developing countries.
For the developing countries, all these problems can be traced back to the basic
problem of the lack of a strong scientific community. This is further reflected in the
research projects to be carried out in biosphere reserves and in the priority themes of
such research.
For these reasons, MAB is promoting a research programme for biosphere reserves that
will provide the basic scientific foundation for ecologically sound conservation and
development.
In order to better understand the importance of the proposed international programme,
we must return to the initial reasons for having biosphere reserves and other protected
areas.
We all agree that the main objective is to preserve representative samples of the
ecological and biological diversity of the earth in an effort to conserve the biological
heritage of future generations that may need new options for their survival, even as we
may do.
22
The most important and well-known arguments for this objective are the following:
a) To safeguard a good representative sample of the diversity of biological and genetic
resources which may have a potential for future uses as research advances (e.g. for
future drugs, foods, raw materials, species or genes for biological control of pests,
etc.).
b) They function as reservoirs of genetic resources for the future improvement of our
domestic crops and animals, through the protection of populations of wild relatives.
c) To preserve a biological bank from which we can draw in the future to restore or
improve our ecosystems.
d) To preserve ecosystems as an ecological information bank to which we can go back
to understand the function of the whole natural ecosystem and of its parts, as a
means of improving the management of man-made ecosystems.
If these arguments are still valid, and I believe that they are even more so today, the
logical step in research should be to identify both the present and potential biological
resources found within the network of biosphere reserves. This is needed not only for
the purpose of evaluating what we have, but also to be sure that we are protecting a
significant portion of our biological heritage.
It is also important that we develop an international information system on these
resources, which would be available to scientists, decision makers, planners, etc. This
will help promote research on new and better uses of the biological resources of the
world.
These types of research, no matter how logical and worthy they may seem, are difficult
to implement as they are linked to a poor knowledge of the biota of many important
ecological zones of the earth. This is particularly true in the tropics. Another factor
complicating this research is the scarcity of well- trained scientists and professionals in
these fields for doing the work in the most needed area.
The paradox of all this is that we are protecting resources that in many cases have not
even been identified. According to the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, the
tropical biota includes an estimated 5 million species, from which half are unknown to
science. There are only about 1500 scientists to study these resources- is an extremely
low figure, considering the task ahead.
This subject has been stressed as a priority subject by a great number of high level
panels and scientific reports. It was also identified as one of the original priority
themes for MAB.
UNESCO has played some role in this problem, not only through activities of the MAB
programme, but also by sponsoring several projects and committees such as the Flora
Neotropica and several high-level symposia on the humid tropics.
As a UNESCO consultant, I proposed to MAB a research programme which will
hopefully gain the approval of many scientists and countries. This project was approved
by the ICC Council of MAB in December 1984, one week after the presentation of this
paper in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. The program has the following general objectives:
23
1) To stimulate MAB National Committee to initiate (at their own expense), concrete
research projects on the biological resources of their most important biosphere
reserves.
2) To promote multinational pilot and demonstration research projects to study the
biological resources protected in biosphere reserves.
3) To develop a global information system on the biological resources of the biosphere
reserves that will include scientific names, vernacular names, and minimal
biological and ecological information for each species and their distribution.
4) To promote and stimulate research on both the traditional and modern uses of
biological resources, particularly in tropical cultures.
5) To promote a global computerized checklist of plants and animals of the biosphere
reserves.
6) To promote the dissemination of information on the results of this research to the
interested public.
7) To promote the training of new scientists and professionals in these fields,
particularly those in developing countries.
8) To promote the participation of leading scientific research centers as advisors and
contributors to specific multinational pilot projects in biosphere reserves.
Organization of the Project
A scientific council will be set up to guide the programme, and at least three working
committees: one on botanical research, one on zoological research, and one on
biological data bases.
Expected Outputs
1. A series of publications on the biological resources of biosphere reserves.
2. The production of a computerized checklist of the biological resources protected in
biosphere reserves.
3. An information system available to users through computer terminals diskettes as
well as written printouts. This information system should have a standardized
nomenclature system for plant and animal names and for localities.
4. A group of trained scientists and professionals in the area of biological inventories,
resource evaluation, and data management.
5. Stimulation of permanent ecological and biological research activities in biosphere
reserves. The establishment of a strong commitment of the scientific community to
research and development activities in biosphere reserves.
6. An evaluation of the extent of protection for mankind's biological heritage in order
to plan future actions in this regard.
24
7. A better understanding of man-made environmental disturbance and its impact on
biological diversity.
In order to have a successful programme, we need two main factors: (a) the enthusiastic
commitment of the scientific community and (b) the support- both intellectual and
financial- of countries. We have had a very enthusiastic initial response from
scientists and we are just starting individual national consultations.
THE ROLE AND THE VALUE OF THE 1984
ACTION PLAN FOR BIOSPHERE RESERVES
Richard Bill1
Abstract. In less than a decade, since the first biosphere reserves were
established in 1976, the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) concept has grown
into a large international network of 243 reserves in 65 countries (as of
December 1984), with approximately half of the world's terrestrial
biogeographical provinces represented with the network. In 1983, the
First International Biosphere Reserve Congress was held to review the
experience of the previous years and to set the general framework
for future development of the network. This Conference resulted in
the development of an Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves, which was
approved by the UNESCO-MAB International Coordinating Council in
December 1985. The Plan lays out 35 recommended actions for the
period 1985-1989. These recommended actions can be used at the local
level for individual reserves, as well as for the network at the national
and international level.
INTRODUCTION
The Man and Biosphere Program was launched by UNESCO in 1971. The broad range of
themes within MAB deals with people- environment interactions over the whole range of
bioclimatic and geographic situations of the biosphere, from polar to tropical zones,
from islands and coastal areas to high mountain regions, and from sparsely populated
regions to dense human settlements. In sum, the Program was concerned with a
worldwide program of international scientific cooperation which could be applied in
these areas. It was designed to provide information needed to solve practical problems
of resource management, to fill gaps in the understanding of ecosystem structure and
function and human impact. Key ingredients are to involve decision-makers and local
people with scientists from the social, biological and physical sciences in research
projects, training and demonstration. It was recognized that environmental problems
are complex and require multi-disciplinary approaches. The international biosphere
reserve network was recognized early as an essential part of MAB.
The International Coordinating Council (MAB-ICC), which supervises the MAB Program,
decided at its first session in 1971 that one of the themes of this programme was to be
the "conservation of natural areas and the genetic material they contain." Under this
theme was introduced the concept of the "biosphere reserve." This was to be a series of
protected natural areas, linked through a coordinated international network, which
would demonstrate the value of conservation and its relationship with development.
These natural areas were to be places where MAB- related and other similar scientific
activities could take place with assurance that the areas would not be disturbed or
changed by man.
iMAB consultant, UNESCO Secretariat Division of Ecology and Science, Paris
25
26
This paper makes no attempt to lay out the criteria for selection of bisosphere
reserves. It does not attempt to set the objectives for the international network; nor
does it attempt to detail the characteristics of a reserve. These details are available in
the other papers in this proceedings and in other published literature, through libraries
which have been established in biosphere reserves. Instead, the emphasis will be placed
upon the future work of the network, which is evolving out of the Action Plan for
Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO, Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves. MAB, Paris 1985).
The international network is, in many ways, a voluntary network to which natural areas
are added without formal commitments compared to international treaties. But there
is a clear understanding that areas which are designated biosphere reserves by the MAB
International Coordinating Committee (MAB ICC), at the request of member countries,
do meet the selection criteria which were established in 1974 (UNESCO). Final Report
on Criteria and Guidelines for the Choice and Establishment of Biosphere Reserves.
MAB Report Series No. 27, Paris 1974), and which are being reviewed in 1985. Few
biosphere reserves will contain all the elements that characterize a specific
biogeographical province. Thus, it may be necessary to designate several biosphere
reserves in order to fully represent a province.
Each biosphere reserve is expected to meet at least some of the nine objectives which
have been identified for the network. And, as the practical problems of biosphere
reserve management are overcome, so it could be possible, given sufficient funding and
interest for each reserve, firstly, to improve on its ability to meet some initial
objectives, and, then secondly, to tackle additional objectives.
In less than a decade since the first biosphere reserves were established in 1976, the
international network has expanded to include 243 reserves in 65 countries (as of
December 1984). These 243 reserves of land, wetland and water include representative
elements of half of the earth's 193 biogeographical terrestrial provinces. An indication
of the continued growth of this network is that seventeen new reserves were added in
1984 alone, and others were referred for review in 1985.
Since the creation of MAB in 1971, cooperation in the fields of conservation and
sustainable development has grown at least in parallel with the worldwide recognition
of their importance. The Ecosystem Conservation Group (ECG) is one such form of
cooperation between the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (IUCN) and UNESCO- MAB. This ECG provides the formal basis
for cooperation in meeting the objectives of the international biosphere reserve network
on a worldwide basis. It formally recognized that the principles of information
gathering to solve practical problems of resource management on a multi-disciplinary
basis can be greatly assisted through this network. For this purpose, the ECG meets
regularly to ensure close cooperation.
A recent example of this cooperation was the First International Biosphere Reserve
Congress held in 1983. The Congress reviewed the experience of the previous ten years
and set up the general framework for future development of the network. Also, of
crucial importance, the Congress brought together biosphere reserve managers, local
people, decision- makers and scientists from most participating countries around the
world. They were thus able to identify with the international network and to perceive
how their reserves and their actions were having an impact on a worldwide basis.
27
ACTION PLAN FOR BIOSPHERE RESERVES
The result of the Congress workings and subsequent review is the Action Plan for
Biosphere Reserves for the period 1985-89. This Action Plan was given formal approval
by the MAB-ICC in 1984. From here, work on the Action Plan has taken two directions:
1. Formal approval is being sought from the Governing Councils of FAO, UNEP and
IUCN at the international level; and
2. MAB National Committees in each country are encouraging their biosphere reserve
managers and sponsoring organizations to include the Action Plan in the operations and
management planning at the field level.
The second point is the most relevant in this paper, and, for this purpose, the main
actions which are applicable to biosphere reserve managers, scientists and local people
are summarized.
It should be noted that the Action Plan has been prepared as a framework for action
rather than as a detailed plan with steps applicable equally at each biosphere reserve.
This is because of differences in the ability of each reserve to respond to the main
purpose of the plan — the promotion and implementation of the biosphere reserve
concept and making it a more effective agent for sustainable development. This does
not diminish the potential impact of the Action Plan upon each reserve. Rather, it sets
up a series of goals which can be achieved with time and adequate support at each
reserve.
What is required now is to translate these Actions into terms or ideas which can be
understood at the local level. In order to strengthen each individual link in the
international network, the Action Plan requires careful review and local objectives
must be set; that is, local objectives which are attainable within a realistic budget and
time frame.
There are three main thrusts in the Action Plan:
1. Improving and expanding the terrestrial network;
2. Developing basic knowledge for conserving ecosystems and biological diversity; and
3. Making biosphere reserves more effective in linking conservation and development.
Within the first thrust- -improving and expanding the network- the onus for action lies
largely with the members of the ECG--FAO, UNEP. IUCN and UNESCO— to lay out the
criteria for future expansion. These include identifying gaps in the current network
from two prospectives: identifying those reserves which are in need of assistance in
broadening their fundamental objectives, and identifying those biogeographical
provinces where ecological representation in the network is inadequate. Another action
is to review and, where necessary, refine criteria for selecting new reserves.
The work in this area is of importance to "local" reserves in that it will, for example,
help to raise the overall quality of the network, could result in "twinning" arrangements
where the strong help the weak, and help nations identify ecological "gaps" in
representation, as well as centres of endemism and genetic richness. In filling "gaps"
the initiative moves to the "local" levels to get local participation in selecting and
establishing new reserves.
28
Within the second thrust using the network to increase knowledge- the work is spread
more evenly between the national and local efforts on the one hand, and international
support on the other.
With international and national help, individual reserves are being encouraged to select
biological, chemical and physical variables for background monitoring which are of
global and, perhaps, local value. Reserves are being encouraged to undertake research
into basic ecological processes of value in local management and "conservation science"
in general. Other important reserve actions which are identified include monitoring
management effectiveness; collecting traditional knowledge of species and ecosystems
usage; and spreading all such knowledge through as wide a variety of ways as possible to
reach a wide public.
Within the third thrust- making biosphere reserves more effective in demonstrating the
value of integrating conservation and development- -the work remains cooperative,
involving the individual biosphere reserve and national and international activities. It
depends heavily upon the success of the network in the other two thrusts to be able to
demonstrate its value.
Each reserve, having core and buffer area characteristics, should incorporate local
people in its management, education, research, monitoring, demonstration and
conservation functions. To be able to demonstrate the value of a reserve as an
ecological model supporting sustainable development, those most immediately affected
live within or beside the reserve have to be called upon. Local people are the most
effective ambassadors who can relate to others who are being invited to change their
approaches to the use of natural resources.
While it is clearly stated in the Action Plan that each government will establish its own
priorities for implementing activities in biosphere reserves, a minimum set of activities
are recommended for each reserve:
— Preparation of a management plan which lists the steps to develop a biosphere
reserve capable of handling a broad range of functions;
— Preparing histories of research (for future activities);
— Establishing research program(s) and facilities as required for a five-year period;
— Establishing procedures for monitoring key biological parameters;
— Compiling baseline inventories of flora and fauna species and their present and
traditional uses (for future research, monitoring and information activities); and
— Establishing an education/training/demonstration program.
The Action Plan is currently subdivided into groups of Actions. A synopsis of these is
included as a table at the end of this paper, together with an indication of the time span
anticipated, the cooperating "entities," and the priority and status of each Action.
Because the Action Plan is aimed at the international network and the ECG, the
"entities" do not spell out the Actions to be taken at the reserve level. Instead, it is
proposed that "Governments" would imply close cooperation with reserve management
and liaison committees.
29
CONCLUSION
The important step, as mentioned earlier, is to translate these Actions into terms and
ideas which can be understood and implemented at the local biosphere level. This can
only really be done in cooperation between the MAB National Committee, the relevant
sponsoring agency (such as the U.S. National Park Service) and the local biosphere
reserve. The approach can be to recommend Actions at the national level for
implementation at the local level. Such an approach will provide the local manager and
others with general goals which have to be modified by local experience and anticipated
resources. Another approach can be to encourage local managers to develop local
Actions which are achievable in terms of anticipated resources for the job but not
necessarily meeting national objectives. The third approach is to combine the two: to
match local resources and ideals and national objectives and support resources. The
successful approach will depend upon each MAB national scene..
The challenge to creating a firm foundation for the international biosphere reserve
network has now moved into a time period where goals or Actions are defined in general
terms, and participating national and international agencies are in agreement in general
terms.
The Actions now require careful delineation, the necessary resources (financial, human
and environmental) identified, and a time frame applied to them.
Given the small central Secretariat office located at UNESCO-MAB, the onus for
implementation is moving to the national level.
The next five years will be not merely an interesting time, but a crucial time for the
biosphere reserve concept. Can the ideals be translated into a long-lasting reality: the
promotion of ecologically sustainable development?
Editor's note: A copy of the Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves is provided in the
Appendix.
BILATERAL APPLICATION OF THE MAB CONCEPT
H. Gilbert Lusk1
Abstract. The MAB concept is an effective resource management tool
when establishing a common ground between nations, particularly
when these nations are at different levels in their development. The
evolution of Big Bend National Park and its long- term dealings with
Mexico are briefly described, and an analysis is provided of the MAB
concept as a central management and communication tool between
nations. The Chihuahuan Desert, a sensitive region largely located in
Mexico and represented in the United States by Big Bend National
Park, is briefly described as the object of what is hoped will become a
major international cooperative study zone under the umbrella of
MAB. Also included is a review of an on-going case study in bilateral
relations between Big Bend National Park and representatives of the
Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos Hidraulicos and Secretaria de
Desarrollo Urbanos e Ecologia of Mexico.
The Big Bend region of Texas was first recognized for its natural and cultural
significance and its potential as a national park in 1916. At a time when the United
States and Mexico were involved with border problems and a state of military
preparedness existed along the border, soldiers from the Pennsylvania National Guard,
stationed at Big Bend, were writing home that the region should be declared a great
national park. It was a time of Pershing, Patton, Villa and Harris- -the last name that
of a Pennsylvania soldier who saw through the conflict to the future of the area in an
illustrated postcard to home. It was the first recorded mention of the area as a
potential national park. Less than twenty years later, as the park was becoming a
reality, discussions at the highest levels were ongoing about an international park with
Mexico, similar to the Waterton- Glacier International Peace Park along the Canadian
border. Frequent meetings were held to discuss the concept with Mexico and eventually
an international park of some 2.5 million acres in Mexico and the United States was
being proposed. The Presidents of Mexico and the United States both strongly endorsed
the concept in the 1930's and it has since been endorsed by many of the Presidents of
both countries.
Established by Act of Congress in 1944 to preserve a unique portion of the Chihuahuan
Desert, Big Bend National Park has yet to be joined by a similar resource across the
border in Mexico. The reasons for this make an excellent, though small, case study of
international relations, resource management and of the possibilities offered by the
MAB program in the management and preservation of natural resources.
What we have then is a series of observations and experiences detailing the current
situation at Big Bend National Park and how both nations are striving, within their
relative national goals, for a realistic and bilateral application of MAB or a similar
program. It should be noted that the approaches and techniques mentioned are the
result of a unique situation and are being implemented by a multi- national group of
people with little or no experience in the sophisticated world of international relations.
It represents a simple and sincere effort from the lowest common denominator of
human interaction-- friendship.
1 Superintendent, Big Bend National Park, Big Bend, Texas
30
31
Big Bend National Park was created to preserve and recognize the unique qualities of
the Chihuahuan Desert — a relatively young North American desert with a marvelously
complex diversity of plants and animals. It is a desert which is largely contained in the
inter-mountain valleys of northern Mexico with only a small portion spilling over into
the United States. In both countries, the region is one of limited rainfall and
population, although in Mexico, the area is more isolated because of a lack of good
roads and outside communication. Large land ownership patterns occur and population
centers are few and far between. The economy in this area is limited by the terrain and
desertification to ranching, tourism and harvesting of natural resources- this last
element often involving illegal practices such as cactus and fur poaching and the
harvesting of candelilla for production of wax.
There are, as well, underground economies such as the smuggling of drugs, contraband
and other items between the countries and many Mexican citizens of the northern
frontier, desirous of supporting their families, still illegally enter the United States to
work. It is, in short, a beautiful but very demanding region of the world which would
seem to welcome the economies represented by tourism and made possible by a large
and beautiful international park.
With critical economic needs, a magnificent resource and strong support given by both
countries for over fifty years, what has prevented the concept of an International Park
from becoming reality? In reviewing the background and notes of meetings held over
the decades and from my own observations, it is easy, if not entirely accurate, to make
a few assumptions.
1. For fifty years, we have been dealing with a resource protection concept which is
unrealistic for Mexico to embrace. The concept of a national park with protection
of its resources from harvesting, hunting and multiple use will not allow Mexico to
respond to its pressing needs as a nation. While other nations have developed
national park concepts which permit flexible uses, much of the discussion between
Mexico and the United States has centered on the United States' model of park
management. To advance discussions pertaining to resource use and preservation, a
broader and much more liberal concept was needed.
2. We expressed interest in a companion park in Mexico so long as it didn't become
developed. A wilderness area was sought with strict protection and this, as
indicated, was a most difficult concept for Mexico to deal with. As a National Park,
Big Bend and its management should be concerned with the level and type of
development which occurs around the park, but we cannot expect a nation which is
in need of economic stimulation and growth to agree to the freezing of major
resources and to the non-development of those resources by restricting roads,
lodges, campgrounds, village growth, etc. There are accordingly two options: stick
to an uncompromising resource management concept and gain little, or be willing to
compromise on the question of use and development and set the stage for potential
long-term resource enhancements. Either way, it is up to Mexico to do with their
country as they must and for us to support or consult when asked. We should not,
however, place unrealistic obstacles in the way, and we must recognize that Mexico
cannot support massive wilderness areas at this point in their history.
3. Discussions about the park have, in the past, been held with representatives of the
scientific community and with a few interested parties at the state level in Mexico.
Our approach on the issue of a preserve has largely been from the top down as
opposed to the bottom up. We have simply not taken enough time to establish strong
33
1 . A thorough review of all park policies was conducted to assure consistency of
application for all park neighbors. Did we, in effect, respond to our neighbors in the
United States in one way and to our neighbors in Mexico in another? When such a
policy was found, and there were a few, we adjusted or changed it to reflect an
even-handed treatment of everyone, regardless of citizenship.
2. Goodwill Ambassadors were assigned from within the park staff to interact with the
three Mexican villages directly across from the park. The intention of the program
is to provide direct communication with village leaders and also to listen to any
concerns from them in regard to our policy and management. Although the park has
a large staff of Hispanic employees, the ambassadors were selected from the ranks
of our Anglo employees to help convey the fact that everyone in the park was
supportive of the effort. People with an interest in cross-cultural exchange and
improvement of their language skills were selected.
3. A Fall good neighbor fiesta concentrating on cultural exchange was established for
the park community, Mexican villages and park visitors. The emphasis of the
program is on a positive program of events for the school children of both
countries. The fourth annual fiesta held this October presented entertainment from
both countries and featured the Ballet Folklorico from Chihuahua City, Mexico. The
fiestas have become a focal point for building our village relations.
4. Primary emphasis was placed on the recruitment of personnel who had some Spanish
language ability and who were interested in cross-cultural opportunities. The
number of people who speak some Spanish has increased substantially in the past
four years.
5. A program was undertaken to assure that all exhibits and publications in the park
would become bilingual over a fixed period of time. Every effort has been made to
help people realize that Big Bend is on the Mexican border and that it is an
international experience.
6. At the same time, every effort is being made to place the park in perspective with
the border. The simple scenario that Mexico is a fun and exciting place to visit
inhabited with some of the most gracious and fun-loving people imaginable is much
needed. Too much emphasis has been placed in the past on the romantic "banditos"
and many people still falsely think of Mexico as a dangerous place to go.
7. Visits are made to the state capitals of Saltillo, Coahuila and Chihuahua City,
Chihuahua, Mexico across from the park. Meetings are held with state Governors,
their staffs and various federal officials of several resource management agencies.
Discussions are often wide-ranging and focus on ways we can be of mutual assistance
to one another.
8. Park personnel and Mexican officials have participated in site visits to consult on
resource questions. This includes several conferences, cross-training programs and
orientation visits. These officials have participated in our annual fiestas and other
functions as well. Strong friendships exist in several locations as a result of these
exchanges.
9. Discussions and consultations have been held at Big Bend and in the mountains of
Mexico to discuss the "international park" and to determine if there is a workable
concept. Resource professionals within the Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos
Hidraulicos and the Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano e Ecologia have been involved
and a proposal developed by them has been submitted to Mexico City where it has
33
1 . A thorough review of all park policies was conducted to assure consistency of
application for all park neighbors. Did we, in effect, respond to our neighbors in the
United States in one way and to our neighbors in Mexico in another? When such a
policy was found, and there were a few, we adjusted or changed it to reflect an
even-handed treatment of everyone, regardless of citizenship.
2. Goodwill Ambassadors were assigned from within the park staff to interact with the
three Mexican villages directly across from the park. The intention of the program
is to provide direct communication with village leaders and also to listen to any
concerns from them in regard to our policy and management. Although the park has
a large staff of Hispanic employees, the ambassadors were selected from the ranks
of our Anglo employees to help convey the fact that everyone in the park was
supportive of the effort. People with an interest in cross-cultural exchange and
improvement of their language skills were selected.
3. A Fall good neighbor fiesta concentrating on cultural exchange was established for
the park community, Mexican villages and park visitors. The emphasis of the
program is on a positive program of events for the school children of both
countries. The fourth annual fiesta held this October presented entertainment from
both countries and featured the Ballet Folklorico from Chihuahua City, Mexico. The
fiestas have become a focal point for building our village relations.
4. Primary emphasis was placed on the recruitment of personnel who had some Spanish
language ability and who were interested in cross-cultural opportunities. The
number of people who speak some Spanish has increased substantially in the past
four years.
5. A program was undertaken to assure that all exhibits and publications in the park
would become bilingual over a fixed period of time. Every effort has been made to
help people realize that Big Bend is on the Mexican border and that it is an
international experience.
6. At the same time, every effort is being made to place the park in perspective with
the border. The simple scenario that Mexico is a fun and exciting place to visit
inhabited with some of the most gracious and fun-loving people imaginable is much
needed. Too much emphasis has been placed in the past on the romantic "banditos"
and many people still falsely think of Mexico as a dangerous place to go.
7. Visits are made to the state capitals of Saltillo, Coahuila and Chihuahua City,
Chihuahua, Mexico across from the park. Meetings are held with state Governors,
their staffs and various federal officials of several resource management agencies.
Discussions are often wide-ranging and focus on ways we can be of mutual assistance
to one another.
8. Park personnel and Mexican officials have participated in site visits to consult on
resource questions. This includes several conferences, cross- training programs and
orientation visits. These officials have participated in our annual fiestas and other
functions as well. Strong friendships exist in several locations as a result of these
exchanges.
9. Discussions and consultations have been held at Big Bend and in the mountains of
Mexico to discuss the "international park" and to determine if there is a workable
concept. Resource professionals within the Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos
Hidraulicos and the Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano e Ecologia have been involved
and a proposal developed by them has been submitted to Mexico City where it has
34
received initial support. The area under discussion has been visited by many federal
officials from Mexico City. While still not a MAB concept, the proposal will adapt
quickly and without change to the MAB format, if Mexico so chooses.
10. Two conferences are being planned for 1985 along the U.S. /Mexico border. Both
would be co-sponsored by the National Park Service with one, co- sponsored by the
Texas Historical Commission, dealing with the cultural resources (historical and
archeological) of the border and the other, co- sponsored by the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, dealing with various park and recreation issues affecting the
border. Mexico would hopefully be heavily involved in both conferences and with
the numerous working arrangements and projects which might result.
11. Communications have begun with village officials in Mexico and with professional
archeologists in Texas and the National Park Service regarding a major research
effort on the Presidios of San Vicente and San Carlos, Mexico. Both presidios, built
in the late 1700's, are outstanding examples of frontier development along the Rio
Grande and will yield valuable evidence of the Spanish Colonial Period.
12. Avenues have been opened via personal contacts in Mexico for U.S. scientists to
conduct research in the Maderas Del Carmen on private lands managed by
Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos Hidraulicos. All such researchers must
provide copies of their research to appropriate offices in Mexico to assist in
building their data bases.
All of this and more has been made possible because we have been willing to pursue a
concept of awareness and involvement as embodied in the MAB program. While
discussions have not specifically dealt with the MAB program as yet, the Mexican
proposal for a Maderas Del Carmen unit in Mexico is premised on many of the concepts
embodied within the MAB program.
The Chihuahuan Desert represents a magnificent ecological unity whether you are in
the Chisos Mountains of Big Bend National Park, Cuatro Cienegas or the Maderas Del
Carmen in Mexico. The resources of that desert neither recognize nor understand the
differences which man had put upon the desert in terms of political and social
conventions. At some point in past time, man pointed his finger at the Rio Grande, or
as it is called in Mexico, the Rio Bravo del Norte, and said that the Chihuahuan Desert
to the north of that river would exist in one economic and social climate and the desert
to the south would exist in another. The Man and the Biosphere concept is an
international concept reaching out and indeed demanding bilateral consideration,
stimulating us to consider the desert in scientific and not political terms. But
stimulated as we may be, we must in our dealings and associations recognize the
differences between our countries.
The differences represent more than those that exist between an industrially advanced
nation and a still-developing nation. It's the difference between a nation which has the
luxury of thinking of the desert as a beautiful place and a nation which must make the
desert a place of survival and growth; between a nation which protects its plants and
animals because they are endangered and harmonious and a nation which must use these
resources for food, clothing and economic return. Neither nation is wrong, they are
merely in time with their relative levels of development. In approaching discussion of
resource management concepts, we must recognize that there are differences and avoid
the arrogance of a developed nation in preaching to and/ or trying to change where
another nation must be in its historic continuum.
35
The resource professionals of Mexico are as well trained and caring of resources as any
in the United States or any other country, but they must be pragmatic and make
extremely difficult decisions regarding use of their resources. The United States had
the luxury of dealing with resource issues such as are facing Mexico during a historic
period of sparse and largely dispersed population. Mevico must deal with its resource
problems during a time of heavily concentrated and growing population with small
margin for error. Their challenge is infinitely greater.
As we recognize and analyze these facts and as we do our very best to avoid typical
"Ugly American" approaches, the Man and the Biosphere concept becomes a significant
tool for dealing with resources. It is, after all, a concept eminently suited to resource
issues regardless of where a nation may be in time and development. It allows the
United States to continue on with its policies as represented by national forests,
national parks, etc., and it allows a nation like Mexico to have MAB areas and yet
continue the necessary harvesting and development of its resources. It provides a
nation with a pattern around which long-term goals and objectives can be established.
It provides thinking ground and a place where additional discovery may yield greater
productivity or greater understanding. It is a bilateral concept.
BIOSPHERE RESERVES IN THE UNITED STATES:
PROTECTED AREAS FOR INFORMATION AND COOPERATION
William P. Gregg, Jr.1
Abstract. Biosphere reserves are contrasted with national parks in
terms of the symbolism which influences people to act on their behalf.
The evolution of the biosphere reserve concept in the United States
during the last decade is described, and an assessment is provided on
why the biosphere reserve designation has yet to influence protected
area management significantly. Future emphasis in the U.S. will focus
on expanding and consolidating the existing network to foster more
effective conservation of representative ecosystems, and on developing
the multiple functions of the reserves. The roles of UNESCO and U.S.
MAB organizations, and the implications of U.S. withdrawal from
UNESCO at year's end on the biosphere reserve program are discussed.
Additional keywords: national parks, protected areas, resource
management, UNESCO
This audience is overwhelmingly a national park audience . . . people working in parks
and similar protected areas as administrators, scientists, resource managers,
interpreters . . . heirs to one of the most inspired movements in human history . . .
lovers of the splendor of a boundless creation . . . stewards with the awesome
responsibility of leaving the treasures of this creation unimpaired to nourish the spirits
of generations yet unborn.
By our presence here today, we are participating in a year-long celebration honoring
the creative miracle of this beautiful park. We honor the decision 50 years ago to
protect it. And we acknowledge our sacred obligation to assure its future, just as we
acknowledge the enormous challenges before us.
Unprecedented change is occurring. Environmental. Social. Economic. Like it or not,
we, and the parks we serve, are a part of this change. And the future depends on our
ability to accept the inevitability of change, and to deal with it creatively and
cooperatively. To do this, we will need the best information and technology; and we
must marshal the help and goodwill of others as never before. As we have always done,
we must protect the health of the park within the boundaries. But now we must also
look outward, beyond the boundaries, to nearby and distant sources of changes, and be a
part of efforts to deal with them. We must understand the ecosystems and the gene
pools in our charge, and how changes are affecting them. We must be ready to respond
to crisis, but more importantly we must be able to act confidently to head off crisis.
Finally, we must learn to work with others whose management objectives are very
different from our own, and we must do so in ways which make development more
sustainable and protected areas more secure.
Everyone in this room is aware of the challenge. And I hope everyone is asking, along
with me, how the biosphere reserve designation can help us meet it. In the United
States and Canada, 52 protected areas have received what, to most field personnel,
remains a mysterious blessing. I offer you no panacea for your uncertainty. Barely
eight years have passed since the first biosphere reserves were designated. The concept
1Ecologist, Special Science Projects Division, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.,
and Co-Chairman of the US- MAB Project Directorate on Biosphere Reserves
36
37
is new. It is evolving. And it is being discussed, increasingly, in the 62 countries that
have biosphere reserves and in the many others which are considering them. Out of
these discussions is emerging a clearer concept of a unique category of protected area,
unique in its positive symbolism, and unique in its role in the advancement of human
civilization. So, while 1 can offer no panacea, 1 can provide some perspective on the
concept, how it is being developed in the U.S., and where I see it headed in the next
few years.
A NEW POSITIVE SYMBOLISM
Let us look first at the symbolism. For biosphere reserves to have much impact, people
must be motivated to act on their behalf. For this to happen, the name "biosphere
reserve" must evoke an immediate, positive, and reasonably consistent emotional
response. People must relate to the biosphere reserve as a unique category of
protected area, distinct from all others. The symbolism must be crystal clear.
The success of the national park concept has been due to an overwhelmingly positive
symbolism. When people think of national parks, the vision is one of breathtaking
landscapes and superlative natural features. For huge numbers of people, the emotion is
one of pride in a nation's natural heritage, and protectiveness toward a miracle of
creation. Millions of us have intense personal relationships with these environments.
The sense of spiritual renewal and opportunities for fellowship we find there can be
duplicated nowhere else. The national park symbolism is clear, effective, and enduring
and its ability to motivate people has been greater than for any other category of
protected area.
To me, the symbolism of the biosphere reserve is as compelling as it is different from
the national park. It is a symbolism which reflects the purpose of the Man and the
Biosphere Program; namely, to put knowledge and human cooperation to work to build
harmonious relationships between people and their environment. When I think of a
biosphere reserve, my vision is, first, one of a large, self-sustaining, well protected
ecosystem containing an inexhaustible archive of information for the future benefit of
people . . . information contained in ecological relationships and genetic codes . . .
information waiting to be unlocked through scientific study and put to use through
enlightened management.
My vision is one of people working together at the local level to develop knowledge,
skills, and human values and to build a working model for sustainable conservation of a
biogeographic region. My vision is also of a center for cooperation among nations to
find solutions to environmental problems, like atmospheric pollution, which affects
large parts of the globe. My emotion is one of caring for the condition of the human
family and the world's ecosystems. It is one of enthusiasm for working with others to
improve that condition. Just as for national parks, I feel intense protectiveness; but my
focus extends beyond the resources themselves to the irreplaceable library of
information for human well-being that biosphere reserves represent.
THE IDEAL BIOSPHERE RESERVE
According to UNESCO guidelines, the ideal biosphere reserve is a securely protected
landscape. It includes representative examples of the ecosystems of one of the world's
193 biogeographic regions. It contains as much biological diversity as possible. The
ecosystems are self- regulating, and allow for the natural evolution of genetic
resources. This protected core is used for studying ecosystems, how they operate, and
how they respond to natural changes and changes caused by external human activities,
38
such as pollution. The core is also the control area for comparison with other areas of
the biosphere reserve, located outside the core. Some of these areas are manipulated
experimentally to develop better production systems for livestock, forest products, fish,
or other commodities. Others are used to find ways to rehabilitate disturbed
ecosystems. Where indigenous people are living in harmony with the environment, still
other areas are used to study and learn from the experience of these people.
As a management concept, the watchword is integration . . . Integration of functions at
the site: monitoring, experimental research, resource management, demonstration,
professional training, public education . . . Integration to build a model for sustainable
conservation of a particular natural region . . . Integration of activities at different
levels to help solve problems locally, regionally, and internationally . . . Integration
through cooperation within the management team at each site, between the staffs of
nearby sites, between managers and local people, between professionals in different
institutions and countries.
BIOSPHERE RESERVES: THE UNITED STATES APPROACH
Early History. Although the United States was involved in the early discussions which
led to the biosphere reserve project, our formal involvement dates from 1974. The
project was floundering because United Nations funding failed to materialize. To give
the project a boost, a provision was included in the Nixon- Brezhnev Summit
Communique in July 1974, committing each country to establish biosphere reserves and
to cooperate in their development. During the ensuing months, our National Park
Service and Forest Service worked at breakneck pace to identify sites. Using selection
criteria just published by UNESCO in May, they identified 16 sites. In November, 1974,
the United States, accompanied by Austria, France, the Philippines, and the United
Kingdom, announced the establishment of biosphere reserves at the annual meeting of
the MAB International Coordinating Council. The project was off and running. A year
later, UNESCO developed official designation procedures; and in 1976 the first official
designations were made. Among the 29 units designated in the U.S. were the 16 sites in
our original network.
The Cluster Concept. From the start, the United States recognized that it would be
impossible to select single sites where all the biosphere reserve functions could be
carried out. National parks, wilderness areas, and similar sites worked well as core
areas, but were unsuitable for experimental manipulation, demonstration of sustainable
production systems, and most rehabilitation projects. Experimental forests and
rangelands, and similar areas, accomodated experimental research, but rarely had areas
for conservation of large, self-sustaining ecosystems. Multiple- use areas, such as those
managed by the Bureau of Land Management, often worked well for demonstration and
rehabilitation, but not for other functions. Traditional use areas were confined to
Alaska, scattered Indian reservations, and a few other areas, and were seldom
associated with protected areas.
From 1976 through 1980, we tried to pair large conservation areas with experimental
research sites in the same biogeographic region. Through this so-called "cluster
concept," we hoped to encourage cooperation among the separate biosphere reserves in
carrying out the various functions within the region. The approach resulted in the
designation of Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Coweeta Hydrological
Station in the Southern Appalachians; of Glacier National Park and the Coram
Experimental Forest in the northern Rockies; and of Big Bend National Park and the
Jornada Experimental Range in the Chihuahuan Desert. Unfortunately, the amount of
cooperation between the paired biosphere reserves was disappointing. Many of the sites
41
were hundreds of miles apart, in different ecosystems, and had very different research
and management objectives.
Current Approach. In 1981, U.S. MAB began a systematic selection process to expand
and consolidate our network in each of the 25 terrestrial or 13 coastal regions of the
U.S. and its territories. Region by region, we are convening special panels of scientists
and protected area administrators. The experts identify the representative ecosystems
to be included. They identify the candidate sites potentially available to build
biosphere reserves. They determine the physical, biological, and administrative factors
to be used for describing and comparing the sites. They assess opportunities for
developing biosphere reserve functions. They evaluate the candidates individually and
in groups against UNESCO's criteria. Finally, they recommend sites for nomination by
U.S. MAB as biosphere reserves, pending concurrence of their administrators.
Most panels recommend several biosphere reserves in the selection region. Each
reserve is named after a characteristic natural feature like the California Coast Ranges
or the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Each typically contains several administrative
units which together enable as many of the reserve's functions to be carried out as
possible. Priority goes to well- protected "benchmark" areas, or core zones, for
conserving and studying natural ecosystems. We include areas for experimental
research, demonstration of management methods, rehabilitation of degraded
landscapes, and for studying traditional uses, if such areas are available and if their
owners are willing. The core and the associated research and educational areas are the
basic information-generating units which make up the biosphere reserve. The success
of the reserve in providing the scientific basis for sustainable conservation, then,
depends fundamentally on coordination of these areas. Obviously, the more nearly
contiguous these areas are, the better the chances for success.
In some cases, the "information" sites are contained within a larger multiple- use area.
If this area is being managed compatibly with the conservation, research, and
educational sites, the panel may recommend its inclusion as an area of cooperation
(i.e., an expanded "buffer zone"). Legally established multiple-use reserves, like the
New Jersey Pinelands, or special multi-agency planning districts, like California's Santa
Rosa Mountains Wildlife Management Area are examples. More often the area of
cooperation does not appear as part of the nomination, but develops gradually as
cooperative management activities take place after the reserve is designated. The area
thus varies in space and time depending on the cooperative activities being carried out.
Once successful cooperative management becomes a reality, some of these areas may
elect to join the biosphere reserve officially- but it may be some time before we see
this occurring.
Few nominations are complete. There are nearly always gaps in ecosystem
representation and biosphere reserve functions, because suitable sites or willing
administrators do not yet exist. The panel notes the gaps, and may suggest ways to fill
them, but gaps do not and should not prevent us from establishing a biosphere reserve.
They do mean that we must build the biosphere reserve opportunistically over the years
until the gaps are filled.
The actual nomination procedure can move quickly. The panel sends its report to the
Project Directorate on Biosphere Reserves, which contains representatives from all
major Federal land managing agencies and several organizations and universities. The
Directorate approves sites for nomination. Before the U.S. actually nominates a site,
however, the MAB Secretariat at the State Department requests written concurrence
from the administrator. Once this has been obtained, the Secretariat transmits the
nomination to UNESCO for review by a newly-established international advisory panel
on biosphere reserves, which meets as necessary. Although terms of reference for the
40
panel have not yet been adopted, it is expected that the panel will recommend sites for
approval by the bureau of MAB's International Coordinating Council and official
designation by the Director- General of UNESCO, who signs the official certificates
which are sent to the site administrators. The whole process, from the panel's first
session to designation, takes about 18 months.
THE ROADBLOCKS
To me, biosphere reserve designation for a national park or other protected area should
add new dimensions to its mission, new challenges in its management, new reasons for
its secure protection, and new constituencies for its defense. However, it is not
surprising that the reality falls short of the ideal. Why?
Too New a Concept. It has been only eight years since the United Nations designated
the first biosphere reserves. The concept is still evolving. It is still being adapted to
the different conditions in MAB countries. Its symbolism is still crystallizing. Can we
reasonably expect an idea so new and so different to energize our community in so short
a time? I do not think so.
Slow Flow of Information. MAB's success in getting out the word on biosphere reserves
to field personnel and the public has been disappointing. Lack of nontechnical media
materials is one reason. We are preparing a new brochure and a slide-tape program,
and we are preparing a video documentary at this conference. These should help.
Another problem has been insufficient administrative support. I spend most of my time
on the project and have several part-time students to help with program planning,
selecting biosphere reserves, answering requests, and coordinating projects. However,
we have far more work than our one person-year can handle. MAB's Secretariat at the
State Department has a staff of two, plus some irregulars, yet it serves the entire U.S.
MAB program, which has ten major project areas, of which the biosphere reserve
project is but one. The planned strengthening of the program in 1985 will mean a larger
and more effective Secretariat, and better communication.
Emphasis on Numbers Rather Than Functions. Since 1976, MAB has devoted its limited
resources primarily to expanding the biosphere reserve network. The international
network now counts 243 reserves in 65 countries (January 1985 data), including 41 in the
U.S. and 2 in Canada. By any measure, this is a significant accomplishment for a
program barely a decade old. However, with notable exceptions, we have yet to pursue
the opportunities the designation and the network provide, and to develop
demonstrations which convince people of the practical benefits of the biosphere reserve
approach.
Perception: Scientists in Control. Because research is a key function, scientists are
interested in biosphere reserves. The project's initial impetus came from scientists.
Support today comes largely from scientists. As a result, resource managers and users
often feel that the only beneficiaries are scientists. This view is widely held in spite of
the overriding mission of the designation to approaches to management. Last year's
World Congress on Biosphere Reserves in the Soviet Union focused on the biosphere
reserves' role in solving land use and management problems. For the first time,
managers are beginning to explore the opportunities and the potential benefits of
biosphere reserves. Our workshop here is an important step in this search.
MAB: The Disappointing Benefactor. Some U.S. biosphere reserve administrators have
expressed disappointment because they have yet to see tangible benefits in terms of
MAB- funded projects. The designation has been misperceived as providing a
41
supplementary source of funds, rather than a basis for expanding and redirecting the
administrator's own programs. For a time between 1979 and 1982, some administrators
did benefit from a MAB research grant program, which funded a score of projects
involving U.S. biosphere reserves, among others. This program became inactive in 1983
because the participating domestic agencies failed to fund it. MAB's funding picture
improved slightly in 1984, is likely to be somewhat better in 1985, and should be much
better in 1986. However, MAB is unlikely ever to be a major direct source of project
funds for most reserves. Instead, its function is more likely to be catalytic by providing
seed funds and the MAB imprimatur for cooperative activities which serve the
management objectives of the reserve and the mission of MAB.
The "Good Management" Problem. Biosphere reserves are a different breed because of
their functions and the way they are carried out. Cooperative resource management
programs, regional and national pollution monitoring, interdisciplinary research,
environmental education, professional training activities, and international cooperation
are all important activities in many U.S. biosphere reserves. Yet, the biosphere reserve
rarely is recognized for such activities. Even when activities are peculiar to biosphere
reserves, they are invariably credited simply to "good management." Hopefully, one
output of this workshop will be to identify activities which warrant the biosphere
reserve "label" so that we can use the biosphere designation to encourage them.
No Legal Obligations. Participation in the international network of biosphere reserves
is strictly voluntary. Unlike World Heritage Sites, biosphere reserves have no
international treaty governing their designation. In most countries, designation carries
no domestic legal obligations. At a time when management is increasingly dominated
by laws and regulations, administrators have tended to see the designation as a
gratuitous honor, rather than a new opportunity for expanding a protected area's
mission. This view ignores the biosphere reserve's role in marshalling moral energy for
cooperation to solve land use and management problems ... in bringing people and
institutions together to develop the knowledge, skills, and human values that make
solutions possible. The view ignores the particular benefits of the biosphere reserve
approach in helping the manager deal with land use changes and other external
influences which are outside his or her legal authority.
As a final consideration here, let me say that administrators accept biosphere reserve
designation largely because of the voluntary nature of the program. This has enabled
the network to grow rapidly. It has also enabled us to forge symbolic linkages among
complementary protected areas within a biogeographic region — linkages which can be
formed only through the biosphere reserve approach.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Restructuring the Network. We will continue to restructure the U.S. network in the
years ahead. We will continue to convene selection panels to identify the gaps and
recommend protected areas to fill them. At the present rate of three or four panels a
year, it will take about a decade to cover the entire country. We will continue to link
ecologically and functionally complementary sites to give us better opportunities for
carrying out the multiple functions of biosphere reserves. Administrators of existing
reserves will be asked to join multiple-site biosphere reserves, which will bear the
names of natural regions or features. We will keep track of those who turn down
nomination so that we can pursue opportunities later. In this way, we will gradually
create large protected landscapes through voluntary cooperation, rather than by law
42
or regulation. By linking contiguous areas, we will make boundaries more ecological
and less political. We will provide a symbolic and practical framework for coordinated
management of entire watersheds, mountain massifs, estuaries, reefs, important
wildlife habitats, and other ecological units. We will create opportunities for
establishing protected areas as information resources and as centers for cooperation.
We will create opportunities to demonstrate that we can manage ecosystems for a wide
range of amenities, environmental services, and commodities, while conserving natural
processes and gene pools. We will create opportunities to enhance the importance of
protected areas to human well-being, while improving their security. However, the
opportunities will remain just opportunities until we take advantage of them.
Developing the Functions. "What's in it for us?" is a question frequently voiced by field
personnel! In fact, it is probably the central question of this conference. Clearly,
windfall management profits have not followed on the heels of designation. But, then
again, should we really expect immediate benefits from a designation designed to
encourage cooperation and development of protected areas as "information resources"?
These things take time. They take initiative. They may even take new perspectives.
The benefits from designation come from developing functions rather than from the
designation itself. They come from acting on the symbolism, from our personal
initiatives. So, instead of the one question, let me suggest ten to focus on the areas
where we can expect benefits:
(1) Does our information from monitoring make us confident that we can detect,
evaluate, and distinguish natural and human- caused changes in ecosystems . . .
even the subtle changes?
(2) Is our research interdisciplinary? Does it involve both natural and social sciences?
Is the information helping to solve the interrelated environmental, land use, and
socioeconomic problems of the region?
(3) Is comparative research on undisturbed and manipulated areas giving the region
sustainable production methods? Is it helping us understand how ecosystems
operate?
(4) Are degraded ecosystems being successfully restored?
(5) Is cooperation with other sites in the international network giving us better
perspective on problems of common interest?
(6) Is the reserve demonstrating how to manage ecosystems for a wide range of
amenities, environmental services, and commodities? Is it showing how to
conserve biological diversity under various management strategies?
(7) Is the reserve a regional or international center for the education and training of
scientists, land managers, and resource users?
(8) Are local people involved in setting objectives and in management planning? Do
local people benefit from the reserve? Do they support the reserve?
(9) Is the public being informed about how people depend on healthy ecosystems?
About how protected areas are helping to solve environmental problems at home
and abroad? About how the particular biosphere reserve is helping?
43
(10) Are there productive relationships with regional universities, institutions,
organizations, and agencies? With the economic development sector? Are their
capabilities being marshalled to solve problems?
Most U. S. biosphere reserves can answer "yes" to some of these questions, but none can
answer "yes" to all of them. Sometimes this is because the biosphere reserve does not
yet include sites for carrying out particular functions. Sometimes it is because we have
yet to consider the functions.
It seems to me that, if we act together on behalf of the biosphere reserve concept, we
shall eventually be able to answer "yes" to all of these questions. Some of the things we
might do are listed in the Appendix. Once the leap of the faith has been made,
biosphere reserves will acquire a unique identity. They will be recognized as centers
for information and cooperation. They will become models for successful management
. . . and the benefits will be obvious.
HELP FROM MAB
Once the leap of faith has been made, MAB can help biosphere reserves develop their
functions. How?
MAB can foster international cooperation to help biosphere reserves contribute in
dealing with pollution and other problems of international concern. UNESCO's MAB
Secretariat in Paris can provide travel grants to help bring together specialists, from
whatever country, without red tape. It can provide endorsements and "seed funds" to
launch worthwhile international projects. It can help coordinate international
workshops. It can provide information on sites and activities in the network. It
provides access to MAB organizations in 105 countries and thousands of specialists
participating in MAB field projects.
In the U. S., the Secretariat at the State Department supports MAB through funds
provided by several agencies, including the National Park Service, the Forest Service,
and NASA (and hopefully someday the private sector). It gives access to the
capabilities of MAB's participating agencies, universities, organizations, and hundreds
of project specialists. It furnishes information on MAB activities through its
newsletter. It publishes MAB reports and provides guidelines for selecting biosphere
reserves and carrying out biosphere reserrve functions. It can help fund ecosystems
monitoring. It can help fund research, which is interdisciplinary, international,
ecosystem- oriented, problem-oriented, and future-oriented. For various reasons, such
projects may not compete well in agency programs but they are often are the ones
which can help chart new directions in resource management. For example, MAB now
funds research on management of genetic resources, on the design of protected areas,
on models for assessing protected area boundaries, on ethnobiology and on the
traditional land use practices of indigenous people, on comparative assessment of
pollution effects in different ecosystems, and on restoration of degraded ecosystems. It
supports cooperative projects with Brazil, Canada, Chile, the Lesser Antilles, Mexico,
and the Soviet Union, among others. It is helping with demonstration projects, such as
the automated geographic information systems for managing the Everglades and Great
Smoky Mountains Biosphere Reserves, and comparative ecological modelling in three
experimental biosphere reserve sites.
Like the Paris Secretariat, U.S. MAB is a catalyst for conferences and workshops on
topics of interest to biosphere reserves. By our endorsement and seed money, we can
help bring other supporters on board. This conference is an example, but I could also
44
cite last year's widely acclaimed conference on the management of genetic rosources,
which launched exciting discussions on new areas of management. I could cite MAB's
workshop on biosphere reserves for sustainable development in the Lesser Antilles,
which launched the idea of a multi-island biosphere reserve for solving the problems in
the region . . . and I could cite many more.
MAB can help public education program., become more relevant to the environmental
issues of our day. It can give them new life and meaning. Our exhibit on biological
diversity, which you can see in the poster hall, is an example. Here, we have used
familiar images, like the all- American hamburger, to demonstrate the importance of
conserving diversity in our everday life, and to foster understanding of a generally
unappreciated mission of biosphere reserves and other protected areas.
MAB can help build new mechanisms for managers to look outward through
cooperation. MAB can make the manager's job easier by helping to defuse and prevent
conflict. Here in the Southern Appalachians, and more recently in the Virgin Islands,
there are regional resource management cooperatives which bring together agencies,
universities, and other regional institutions to solve problems. These cooperatives were
first promoted by MAB people, and have been stabilized by MAB concepts and MAB
associations. At Canada's Waterton Lakes Biosphere Reserve, a MAB cooperative helps
park managers and neighboring ranchers identify problems and coordinate their actions
to solve them. In Mexico, MAB associations enable campesinos to participate in the
planning and management of biosphere reserves, and are largely responsible for
eliminating poaching and other problems through local initiatives and support.
If you are interested in information on MAB, or in obtaining endorsement or assistance
from MAB on specific projects, you should contact the Executive Director of the MAB
Secretariat at the Department of State, or one of the co-chairmen of MAB's Project
Directorate on Biosphere Reserves (Dr. Stanley Krugman, Forest Service, or myself).
At this time, MAB's capability to fund projects is limited, because the Secretariat's
FY 1985 budget from all sources will probably be no more than $250,000. The practical
effect is that only projects involving very modest MAB contributions are likely to be
very competitive this year. However, the prospect for increasing this budget at least
several-fold in FY1986 is promising. For this reason, 1985 will be a year of planning for
MAB's future expansion, and the Secretariat and the Directorate welcome your ideas
for specific projects in biosphere reserves.
U.S. WITHDRAWAL FROM UNESCO AND THE STATUS OF MAB
The Administration's decision to withdraw from UNESCO at year's end has drawn
unprecedented attention to MAB. Congressional hearings have repeatedly recorded
MAB's benefits to the United States. The National Science Foundation did the same in
a recent evaluation of UNESCO science programs. Letters of support for strengthening
MAB have poured in from participating agencies, conservationists, and scientists. The
National Academy of Sciences has recommended ways to keep the U.S. involved in MAB
after we withdraw, and we are confident that the Government will act favorably on
these recommendations.
U.S. -MAB has streamlined its organization, and established new priorities, including
completing the biosphere reserve network and strengthening its functions. State is
expected to add three new positions to the Secretariat in FY 1985. More agencies are
coming on board. The most recent was NASA, which began funding MAB last year,
primarily because of its interest in biosphere reserves. The interest is there. Although
45
we do not yet know exactly what our participants will do for MAB in 1985, we are
confident that they will maintain and perhaps increase their collective support.
After the U.S. leaves UNESCO next month, we will lose our membership on MAB's
policy-making body (i.e., the I.C.C.). The impact is more a long-term than an
immediate concern for the biosphere reserves project. If, as expected, the U.S. funds
MAB projects directly rather than through its unrestricted contribution to UNESCO
beginning in FY1986, the number of international projects involving U.S. biosphere
reserves could well increase significantly . . . this as a result of a proposal to reallocate
$2 million to MAB from funds formerly provided to UNESCO. Regardless of the
outcome, we expect that UNESCO will continue to designate U.S. sites as biosphere
reserves. Our specialists will still be involved in MAB activities, and our managers can
rest assured that they will not have to turn in their biosphere reserve certificates and
plaques!
(Note: at the December 1984 meeting of MAB's International Coordinating Council, a
scientific advisory panel on biosphere reserves was established to review nominations,
provide professional oversight of the biosphere reserve projects and make
recommendations to the Council. U. S. scientists will participate on this panel, thus
assuring continuity in our involvement.)
CONCLUSION
More funding for MAB can help us build more effective and more functional biosphere
reserves, but the key ingredient in the project is people . . . people who see the value of
protected ecosystems as informational resources for the advancement of our
civilization . . . people who are willing to put protected areas to work as places for
human cooperation in building a more productive and stable world . . . people who
understand that developing protected areas as biosphere reserves can mean a more
favorable environment for their security, new constituencies for their protection, and
better tools for their management. You, the biosphere reserve managers, scientists,
and interpreters, are the key. The concept can enable you to pursue new opportunities,
improve your communication in the region, develop better perspectives on important
resource management problems, and expand the dimensions of your service to the
public. Voluntary actions alone are the best way to establish the identity of biosphere
reserves as a special category of management, and these depend on you. Without your
enthusiasm, the concept cannot succeed; with it, it cannot fail.
BIOSPHERE RESERVES AND REGIONAL COORDINATION
John D. Mc Crone1
Abstract. The mobilization of regional constituency groups in support
of biosphere reserve activities helps develop a stable political base, a
network for information exchange, and a source of direct functional
support. Examples are given of involvement of scientists, educators,
legislators, public officials, special interests groups, businessmen,
professionals, and the media in reserve programs. Various organizational
models in selected reserves are described and discussed.
It is becoming increasingly clear one of the major factors in attaining biosphere reserve
objectives is the mobilization and utilization of key constituencies within the region
around the reserve. As Gregg (1984) has pointed out:
"The success of a biosphere reserve depends on the involvement of
large numbers of people, working together in a spirit of service to make
each reserve a regional center for the study of natural and managed
landscapes; for demonstrating improved resource management
techniques which are sensitive to the capabilities, social organization,
and cultural traditions of a particular region; and for building a
conservation ethic by furnishing education, practical training, and
basic material resources to improve the well-being of the people on
whose shoulders the protection of the reserve and the conservation
of the region ultimately depend."
The value of mobilizing these constituency groups is that they provide a means to
develop a stable political base for reserve activities, a network for the exchange of
information, and a source of direct functional support for reserve programs.
The importance of political support at the local, state, and federal level cannot be
underestimated. I think it fair to say, with some exception, that political support for
the biosphere reserve network outside the scientific community in the United States is
largely confined to a few members of Congress, their staffs, and interested agency
officials. This dedicated cadre must be reinforced by gaining the support of key public
officials at the regional level by direct personal contacts and indirectly by enlisting the
support of their constituents. To accomplish the latter, an effective program for the
exchange and dissemination of information is essential. Special interest groups and the
media can play a key role here. The special interest groups, ranging from conservation
organizations to organizations representing businessmen and professionals, provide
convenient forums for the presentation of programs about biosphere reserves, their
activities, and their importance to the region. If these presentations are well done,
they will be reported by the media. Often the media will follow up with feature
articles if approached with a theme or message that will capture public attention. For
example, in our region there is a great deal of interest in the effects of acid rain. An
article linking the monitoring responsibilities of biosphere reserves with an issue such as
this would generate considerable interest.
1 Dean, School of Arts and Sciences, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee,
North Carolina
46
47
At the functional level, the involvement of constituency groups directly in reserve
activities is most important. No reserve has a staff of the size that would be needed to
carry out effectively the monitoring, research, training, environmental education,
management and public information activities associated with reserve programs.
Since many reserve activities require the talents of scientists, it is essential that
mechanisms be developed to involve this important constituency. These can range from
unilateral arrangements with individual scientists, to group activities such as the
"pulse" studies conducted in the West by Jerry Franklin and his associates, to highly
organized research consortia such as those that now operate in the Southern
Appalachians and the Virgin Islands.
Linkages with regional educational institutions greatly enhance reserve programs
directed toward training and environmental education. The MAB training program for
natural resource managers from less developed countries, conducted by Frank
McCormick and his associates at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, owes its
success in part to the collaboration with the Rocky Mountain and Great Smoky
Mountains biosphere reserves. At the Mont- Saint-Hilaire Biosphere Reserve in Canada,
the principal activity is an environmental education/training program involving
educational institutions in the region.
Previous reference has been made to the importance of developing political support for
biosphere reserves. In North Carolina, the N. C. National Park, Parkway and Forests
Development Council, an agency of the N. C. Department of Commerce, is an effective
forum for linking the National Park Service and the U. S. Forest Service with key
officials and legislators at the state and national level. The leadership of this group has
shown a keen interest in the biosphere reserve concept and the activities at the
reserves at Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Coweeta Hydrological
Laboratory.
Special interest groups, particularly conservation groups, can play an important
functional role in reserve activities. At the national level, organizations such as the
National Parks and Conservation Association, through their support of conferences such
as this and the dissemination of information to their membership, can help mobilize
support for and involvement in reserve activities. At the local level, cooperating
associations have great potential as a source of voluntary support for reserve
programs. They also provide a mechanism for the development and distribution of
publications that provide information to the public on the importance of reserves in the
conservation and utilization of our natural resources.
One critical area that has not been adequately addressed is the linkage between
biosphere reserves and sustainable development. This issue presents an excellent
opportunity to introduce businessmen, industrialists and members of the professions to
the biosphere reserve concept and its relationship to sustainable development. Too
often they equate biosphere designation with "locking up" resources rather than
providing the basis for effective management and appropriate utilization of these
resources. There are numerous organizations that represent these groups, and they are
often eager to identify new topics and speakers for their meetings. A particularly
important group is the Rotary Clubs. They are especially interested in programs that
have international implications. An effective presentation may enlist their active
support for reserve activities, or at least enhance their understanding.
48
In the rest of this paper, I will review some of the mechanisms, structures, and
techniques that have been used in selected biosphere reserves to coordinate and
integrate activities within the reserve with those in the surrounding region. No single
model will serve the needs of all biosphere reserves, since the achievement of effective
regional coordination must be developed within the context of the priorities of each
biosphere reserve and the capabilities and needs of people and institutions in the
region. These examples will, however, hopefully provide the basis for further creative
thinking on the part of managers of biosphere reserves about the concept of regional
coordination and its significance for their reserves.
MAPIM1 BIOSPHERE RESERVE
The Mapimi Biosphere Reserve in northwestern Mexico has developed a highly
integrated model of regional involvement in the management of the reserve (Halffter,
1981; Montana, 1984). One of the keys to the success of this approach was the
opportunity to involve critical constituencies in the actual planning and establishment
of the reserve. These included the Governor of the state of Durango, federal agencies
such as the National Council of Science and Technology and the Secretary of Public
Education, representatives of the cattlemen, small land -owners, and members of the
Ejido de la Flor, an organization representing groups of peasants who have received
grants of land from the State to utilize as a group or as individuals. Overall
coordination and planning was provided by the Institute of Ecology.
The principal economic activities in the reserve are stock-raising, subsistence
agriculture, the production of vegetable wax and salt production. To ensure the
cooperation of the regional constituencies in the attainment of reserve objectives, an
extensive effort was made to involve the groups in the research and conservation
programs of the reserve. In this way they came to appreciate the direct link between
these programs and the improvement of the economic activities that sustained their
livelihood.
Their participation then made it possible to gain sufficient support to establish a legally
constituted association to manage the reserve. Members of the association include
representatives from: the cattlemen, the small land-owners, the ejidos, the National
Council of Science and Technology, the Institute of Ecology, and the MAB program in
Mexico.
WATERTON LAKES NATIONAL PARK BIOSPHERE RESERVE
Unlike the Mapimi Reserve, the Waterton Lakes National Park Biosphere Reserve was
established by the designation of a national park unit of Parks Canada that has been in
existence since 1895. Thus a parallel opportunity to involve regional constituencies in
the actual development of the Reserve did not exist. The leadership of the Reserve did
recognize, however, that effective management of the Park as a Reserve would require
cooperation and coordination with several other agencies and interested groups in the
region. These included Glacier National Park, another designated biosphere reserve to
the south, provincial forests and private ranchland to the north, and a provincial grazing
reserve and more private ranchland to the east (Cowley and Lieff, 1984; Scace and
Martinka, 1983).
The first step in this direction was the convening in 1981 of a workshop to examine the
biosphere reserve concept in relation to the Waterton Lakes Reserve. The workshop
participants, which included international experts, federal and provincial land
management agencies, researchers, and local ranchers, recommended as a top priority
establishment of a coordinating body at the local level.
49
This recommendation was implemented and a local coordinating committee was
established in 1982. The Committee, whose membership included several ranchers and
park staff, consulted with representatives of provincial agencies and produced a list of
goals for the Waterton Lakes Biosphere Reserve (Cowley and Lieff, 1984).
In an attempt to achieve these goals, the Committee has sponsored three major
programs. The first is a series of forums for information exchange. These have
covered such topics as diffuse and spot knapweed control, elk management, and forest
insect problems. The second is a consideration of steps that can be taken to develop
reserve boundaries that will encompass more than the core National Park. The third is
the establishment of a technical committee to advise on the definition and sources of
support for a comprehensive research program.
MULTIPLE- SITE BIOSPHERE RESERVES - SOUTHERN APPALACHIANS
One of the first multiple- site biosphere reserves to be proposed was a single conceptual
reserve for the southeastern division of the Eastern Forest Biotic Province (Franklin,
1977). As originally proposed, this reserve included a core area, the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park (GRSM); two experimental biosphere reserves, the Coweeta
Hydrological Laboratory (Coweeta) and the Oak Ridge National Environmental
Research Park (Oak Ridge); and a buffer or manipulative zone (Johnson et al., 1979).
For a variety of reasons, only GRSM and Coweeta were designated as biosphere
reserves and the buffer or manipulative zone was never defined nor its boundaries
delineated. Unlike Mapimi and Waterton Lakes, no overall mechanism for regional
coordination has been developed, but a number of separate but interlocking
organizations and activities constitute an impressive network for regional coordination.
In an effort to improve communication between scientists working within the reserves
and the surrounding uplands region, the GRSM Uplands Research Laboratory in 1975
initiated an annual meeting for reports on scientific research and monitoring. It is
clear this is an important forum for communication between individual scientists
working on problems of common interest.
The Southern Appalachian Research/Resource Management Cooperative (SARRMC) has
also played an important role in regional coordination. This unique consortium,
comprised of four federal agencies (U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Park Service and Tennessee Valley Authority) and six universities (North
Carolina State University, University of Tennessee - Knoxville, University of Georgia,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Clemson University, and Western
Carolina University) was formed to improve communication between researchers and
resource managers. SARRMC is a true cooperative. There is no paid staff or budget,
and all activities are carried out using volunteer assistance and funds provided by the
members or by small grants and contracts from other agencies and organizations.
These activities have included projects on stream management, wood as an energy
source, natural diversity in forest ecosystems, management of mountain balds, forest
insect problems, management of wild boar populations, and assessment of damage in the
spruce fir ecosystem. SARRMC also conducted for MAB an assessment and evaluation
of the information base and science activities at GRSM. The project eventually
involved over sixty scientists and resource managers, and resulted in the publication of
two volumes, a history of scientific study in narrative and tabular form and a
bibliography of over 500 references (McCrone et al. 1982a and 1982b).
50
Coweeta has been designated as a long- term ecological research site by the National
Science Foundation, and in cooperation with the University of Georgia has carried oat
numerous studies relevant to the entire region. They have also collaborated with park
scientists on several projects. One was a study of the influence of rooting by wild pigs
(Sus scrofa) on surface fauna, nutrients, and biomass of forest litter and soil in GRSM.
A retrospective symposium on fifty years of research at Coweeta was held in
October, 1984.
In addition to these activities, both GRSM and Coweeta engage in a number of joint
research and monitoring projects with a wide array of agencies and educational
institutions. As a result, a survey designed to assess the status of the baseline resource
inventory, long-term monitoring, and long-term ecological research in 14 biosphere
reserves managed by the NPS showed that GRSM had high ratings in all three categories
(Mack et al. 1981).
Although no formal mechanism has evolved for the involvement of local officials and
the public in reserve management, a number of organizations now play or have the
potential to play a key role. The park has organized periodic meetings with
representatives of a number of conservation organizations. This is known as the Unity
Group, and it serves as a forum for discussion and dissemination of information on
national and cultural resource issues facing the park. The GRSM Natural History
Association has also played an important part in the environmental education program
in the park, a key objective of biosphere reserves. This organization through its
assistance to park interpretive programs can also help in the dissemination of
information on the nature and importance of the biosphere reserve concept.
Other organizations that have the potential to involve the public in reserve activities
are such citizen groups as the North Carolina Parks, Parkway and Forests Development
Council, the Tennessee Park Commission, Western North Carolina Tomorrow and the
Western North Carolina Associated Communities.
It would appear that advocates of the biosphere reserve approach to resource
management in the Southern Appalachians face a critical issue. Should they use more
effectively the existing network of organizations to enhance the implementation of the
biosphere reserve concept, or should they seek a more formal and structured approach
such as the establishment of a biosphere reserve advisory committee?
SOUTH ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN BIOSPHERE RESERVE
The designation of the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Biosphere Reserve, containing two
widely geographically separated units, the Pinelands National Reserve in New Jersey
and the Congaree Swamp National Monument in South Carolina, is a further extension
of the multi-site biosphere reserve concept. Each unit will face two challenges,
coordination within its immediate region and coordination between the two units.
The Pinelands Reserve, like the Mapimi, had active involvement of government at the
local, state and federal level as well as public participation from the very beginning.
Congress, when it established the reserve in 1978, mandated the creation of a planning
commission that represented these interests (Hales, 1978). This Commission has
developed a Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pinelands which is conceptually
similar to the model for biosphere reserves designed by 1UCN (Hales, 1984). In addition,
this Commission has a great deal of authority to regulate land use. Thus it would
appear the Commission would also be the appropriate body to assume the responsibility
for management of the reserve as an international biosphere reserve.
51
Congaree Swamp National Monument, on the other hand, is in a position similar to
Waterton Lakes and Great Smoky Mountain National Park. It can develop ways to
achieve regional coordination that reflects its needs and circumstances. With respect
to coordination between the two units, it is my opinion each should have maximum
autonomy as biosphere reserves, but that some mechanism should be developed to
enable them to identify those common activities in their reserves which would
contribute to greater understanding of the biogeographic region they represent.
LESSER ANTILLES
At a workshop on biosphere reserves and other protected areas for sustainable
development of small Caribbean islands, several speakers recommended that serious
consideration be given to the establishment of a multiple-site biosphere reserve in the
region (Wood, 1984). The Virgin Islands National Park Biosphere Reserve could be
considered as the first unit, and further planning and development would be the joint
responsibility of the newly-formed Virgin Islands Resource Management Cooperative
(VIRMC) and the established Caribbean Conservation Association. VIRMC was
developed in consultation with representatives from the Southern Appalachian
Research/Resource Management Cooperative (SARRMC) and there are some
similarities between the two organizations, although VIRMC has a more diverse
membership than SARRMC. Included are the College of the Virgin Islands, the Virgin
Islands National Park, the Virgin Islands Planning Office, the West Indies Laboratory,
the U. S. Geological Survey, the Island Resources Foundation, the Eastern Caribbean
Natural Area Management Program, Diversified Resources, Inc., the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs,
the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, and the Southern Forest Experiment
Station. VIRMC is already providing a vehicle for regional coordination for the Virgin
Islands National Park Biosphere Reserve, and several joint projects are underway. One
is an integrated, multi-year program that will provide a comprehensive description and
evaluation of marine ecosystems and fisheries of the region, including nearby areas in
the British Virgin Islands. This will help develop the basis for long-term monitoring to
support effective management. The park is also sponsoring an annual colloquium on
research in the region. It is too early to determine whether or not it will be possible for
VIRMC and the Caribbean Conservation Association to develop a multiple-site
biosphere reserve encompassing other islands in the Lesser Antilles, but the prospect is
an exciting one.
CONCLUSIONS
The mobilization of regional constituency groups in support of the attainment of
biosphere reserve objectives is valuable in several respects. It helps provide a stable
political base in support of reserve activities, a network for the exchange of
information, and direct functional support for research scientists, educators,
volunteers, providers of technical assistance, and sources of financial support. Many
biosphere reserves have developed specific structures, mechanisms, and techniques for
mobilizing this support. These range from simple unilateral relationships to complex
organizations integrating a number of constituencies. Each reserve must and will
approach this in different ways reflecting their geographic setting, their political
history, their critical management issues, and the interest and capabilities of other
regional organizations.
52
Cowley, M„, and Lieff, B. C. 1983. Extending the biosphere reserve by involving local
people in western Canada. First International Biosphere Congress, Minsk, USSR.
Gregg, W. P., Jr. 1983. Multiple- site biosphere reserves for better management of
regional ecosystems. Workshop on biosphere reserves and other protected areas for
sustainable development of small Caribbean islands, May 10-12, Caneel Bay, St.
John, U. S. Virgin Islands.
Hales, D. F. 1978. Testimony before the U. S. Senate concerning the Pine Barrens,
New Jersey.
Hales, D. F. 1983. The Pinelands National Reserve, an approach to cooperative
conservation. First International Biosphere Congress, Minsk, USSR.
Halffter, G. 1981. The Mapimi Biosphere Reserve: local participation in conservation
and development. Ambio 10(2/3):93-96.
Johnson, W. C, Olson, J. S., and Reichle, D.E. 1979. Management of experimental
reserves and their relation to conservation reserves: The biosphere reserve
cluster. In Selection, Management and Utilization of Biosphere Reserves,
J. F. Franklin and S. L. Krugman (eds.). General Technical Report PNW-82, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA-FS pp. 64-75.
McCrone, J. D., Huber, F. C. and Stocum, A. S. 1982a. Great Smoky Mountains
Biosphere Reserve: History of scientific study. U. S. MAB Report 5:1-276.
McCrone, J. D., Huber, F. C. and Stocum, A. S. 1982b. Great Smoky Mountains
Biosphere Reserve: A bibliography of scientific studies. U. S. MAB Report 4:1-51.
Mack, W., Gregg, W. P., Jr., Bratton, S. P. and White, P. S. 1981. A survey of
ecological inventory, monitoring and research in the U.S. National Park Service
Biosphere Reserves. NPS-SER Research/ Resources Management Report 49, 23 pp.
Montana, C. 1983. Ecological and socio-economic research in the Mapimi Biosphere
Reserve. First International Biosphere Conference, Minsk, USSR.
Scace, R. and Martinka, C. (eds.) 1983. Towards the biosphere reserve: Exploring
relationships between parks and adjacent lands. Proceedings of an International
Symposium, Kalispell, Montana, U.S., USDI/NPS, 238 pp.
Wood, J. (ed.). 1984. Proceedings of the workshop on biosphere reserves and other
protected areas for sustainable development of small Caribbean islands,
May 10- 12, 1983, Virgin Islands National Park, Caneel Bay, St. John, U. S. Virgin
Islands. USDI/NPS Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 190 pp.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A CONSERVATION ETHIC
© Gabriel J. Cherem1
Abstract. The development of a conservation ethic concerning
biosphere reserves is heavily dependent upon effective, two-way
human communication. Key communication concepts are outlined
and applied to example messages from biosphere reserves. A
communications planning process is set forth, and the concepts of
communication linkages and community interpretation are cited as
potentially powerful tools in the development of a conservation ethic.
Key words: biosphere reserve, communication, linkages, community
interpretation.
INTRODUCTION
I prefer the term "communication" to the term "education," which appears in the
conference program. To me, communication implies a two-way process of interchange,
whereas too often education remains only a one-way process.
Before we can communicate about moral principles or ethics concerning conservation in
general and biosphere reserves in particular, we must take a closer look at key human
communication concepts. What concepts have the greatest chance of producing quality
human communication?
KEY COMMUNICATION CONCEPTS
"Treat me as an equal, and as a person with many facets." As an example of this, I am
speaking to you from three separate roles today: as a businessperson, as an academic,
and as a layman. (I continually find the layman's viewpoint of matters to be a major
source of my understanding of effective human communication.)
As a layman, to be involved in truly effective communication, a message must relate to
my everyday life, be provocative of my attention, and should be connected to a higher
level context in my own life. The communication process must get me actively involved
in the message, must touch my emotions, and must motivate me to further exploration
or action. (Not coincidentally, these are some of the classic interpretive principles set
down by Freeman Tilden. In a broader sense, these interpretive principles are also
powerful principles of effective communication.)
If the message is effective, I in turn will communicate back to the message's sender,
and perhaps more importantly, will communicate that message enthusiastically to my
friends and neighbors.
1 President, Interp Central. Inc., Chelsea, Michigan, and Lecturer, Department of
Geography, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti
53
54
Word- of -mouth information networks are the most powerful form of human
communication. If these networks start with a clear, positive, and relevant
message- -they result in a clear, positive, and relevant message being passed on to
others. If a word-of-mouth network starts with an unclear, irrelevant, and thereby
negative message, the opposite effect will occur.
As a businessperson, I am learning that, at root, communication is a matter of
perception. Two important elements of perception are identity and image. Identity is
what you are; image is how you are perceived. Ideally, both identity and image should
be . . . and should be effectively communicated and thereby perceived ... in harmony.
Those of us assembled at the Conference on the Management of Biosphere Reserves
know what a "biosphere reserve" is (identity), though I must admit it did take me awhile
to grasp this rather abstract concept. For many laymen, however, hearing the term
biosphere reserve creates a heavy fog in the mind- and unclear, confusing, and
potentially frustrating mental images.
If we want the biosphere reserve concept to become understood, utilized and perceived
as a wise use moral principle, we need to re-image the concept for the layperson in a
way that accurately reflects and maintains the identity of the concept.
I do not have a ready answer for precisely what this new and understandable image
should be. This imaging process will and should take time and a good deal of effort. I
do know that what we have here is a classic problem of many businesses- -portraying a
clear and well-thought-out image that accurately reflects a well-thought-out identity.
UNIQUE MESSAGES TO CONVEY IN BIOSPHERE RESERVES
From the standpoint of an academic versed in understanding and teaching ecological
subject matter, communications, and human behavior, it is apparent that the biosphere
reserve concept embodies many exciting ecological and conservation messages. The
quality of the communication of these messages will determine to a great extent the
way in which they are imaged, valued, and acted upon by the layman in terms of a
conservation ethic.
The "global significance of biota" is a vital ecological concept . . . but from the view of
the layman . . . who cares? I can't understand it, much less act on it. To me it sounds
like another example of esoteric gobbledegook. However, imaging of the concept as
"our community is unique on the face of the earth!" is immediately more provocative,
and brings the concept closer to home ... it is our community. It is a source of our
local pride. Members of my community are then in a better position to understand the
concept, and it is only a small step to linking the unique local human community to the
concept of a unique natural community nearby. The survival of both communities is
inextricably married.
The "value of genetic diversity" can be another example of meaningless gobbledegook to
local citizens . . . who cares? However, the popular and imageable phrase in North
American culture, "don't put all your eggs in one basket," begins to communicate the
concept much better. We need "many baskets" . . . containing many sizes and colors of
eggs (genes) ... in order to strengthen our chances for survival and our opportunities
for growth. If one basket is destroyed or damaged by a barnyard pest, we still have
wisely stored other baskets in other places (biosphere reserves) to ensure our survival.
55
COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING
Communications planning is a relatively new but extremely powerful process. It allows
us to generate and organize a tapestry of interrelated messages we wish to
communicate; encourages us to analyze and understand the needs and interests of
diverse target groups; forces us to analyze the emotional and sensory mental imagery
and experience of the target groups; and enables us to happily "many' message with
target group through powerful and precisely- chosen methods of communication.
The tapestry of messages we can communicate includes an organizational system of
themes, subthemes, concepts, and experiences. This tapestry can and should be
generated and organized on at least a national level for the biosphere reserves
program. Each individual biosphere reserve, then, needs a similar tapestry generated
and organized; and each reserve's tapestry must be internally consistent with the
national one and with other reserves. This process allows us to focus in on particular
problems and opportunities at any one reserve.
As an example, having accomplished this organizational process, we may determine that
a key message to communicate at a particular reserve is the value of cooperation in the
monitoring of a forest insect pest. The outbreak of the pest may likely be handled in
two ways — more aggressively on surrounding community lands, and more passively
(because of preservation mandates) in a biosphere reserve core unit. Even though the
problem may be handled differently, there is a distinct opportunity for groups to work
together to obtain a better understanding of the problem and its control. Through
cooperation and monitoring of various artificial and natural control measures, the best
blend of these two methods may be isolated.
We must then look at potential target groups for this message and process of
cooperative monitoring and insect control. The local forest industry is going to have
needs and interests in immediate control; local farmers will not necessarily be as upset
by the problem; and local merchants may not at first be aware of how the forest insect
problem may hurt them due to decreased recreation opportunities. Each of these target
groups will require a decidedly different approach in our communication of the message
to them. Further, the farmers and merchants may turn out to be an excellent avenue of
informal community liaison to the forest industry, as the insect problem does not
present as clear a perceived threat to them.
We must then analyze the emotional mental imagery of each target group- -as an
example, the forest industry. Their immediate mental images may consist of the
biosphere reserve core unit employees and policy as distinct and concrete threats to the
industry's livelihood. This false image must be overcome by providing positive and
genuine examples of the core unit's employees actively attempting to work with the
forest industry in grappling with the insect pest problem. Concrete images of core unit
employees calling, writing, and most importantly, visiting forest industry
representatives are certain to help create a less adversarial mental image in the minds
of the forest industry people.
We have already hinted at the communication methods to best convey both the reality
and mental image of cooperation. Depending upon the size and value system of the
community involved, informal personal visits, informal conversations in local
establishments, supportive telephone calls, or official letters inviting cooperation may
be chosen. Very likely a combination of methods is most appropriate to use.
56
A key term to remember here is that of "linkages." The more active and sympathetic
linkages we can make between people, between organizations, and between people and
organizations, the better chance we have of sharing our expertise and experience in
accomplishing a joint goal.
COMMUNITY INTERPRETATION
It is precisely this concept of "linkages" that we have found to be the mainstay of the
community interpretation process that we have been developing over the past four
years. Community interpretation is the telling of the stories of a community to its
residents and visitors. It involves not only linking people and organizations together,
but also the linking of a story to the imagery in an individual's mind.
Having gained experience in the application of the community interpretation process in
Rochester, New York; Chelsea, Michigan; and the Hawaiian Islands, we have gained a
new appreciation for the power of the linkage concept. When presented with an
opportunity or confronted with a problem of common concern — if that common concern
is imaged and facilitated accurately and properly— people and organizations have been
more than willing to become involved in cooperative group efforts.
The linkage between biosphere reserve core areas and their local communities is
absolutely essential to the furtherance and valuing of the biosphere reserve concept.
Further, the linkage of how the biosphere reserve concept is relevant to the everyday
lives of local citizens must be made aggressively by people who are committed and
sensitive to the way that the human communication process works.
COMMUNICATING WITH VISITORS
If a visitor to a biosphere reserve area can see that local citizens are enthused by and
proud of their biosphere reserve, that visitor is more likely to find the concept relevant
and interesting. Essentially, then, "getting your act together" locally may be the most
critical step in the process of communication toward a conservation ethic.
The visitor will definitely talk to local citizens, may read local newspapers, listen to
local radio, and view local television. The visitor may also spend some time at your
visitor center, and partake of your site programs.
If biosphere reserve messages have been organized, targeted, and communicated
relevantly and enthusiastically at the local level, all of the above media will in turn
convey those messages and image to visitors. If local communication has been
ineffectual, or even conflicting and controversial, then that image will be conveyed to
visitors.
Biosphere reserve messages can and should be communicated strongly through visitor
centers and other on-site programming. Realize though, that your on-site
communication will represent a relatively small portion of the visitor's experience in
your locality.
Attempting to communicate complex biosphere reserve messages totally on- site is akin
to the proverbial "bandage on the amputee." Ongoing and positive communication
linkages with the local community, and community support for biosphere reserve
concepts, are the keys to visitor understanding and appreciation of those concepts.
OBJECTIVES AND NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMS
IN BIOSPHERE RESERVES
Jerry F. Franklin1
Abstract.- -Three categories of research appropriate to biosphere
reserves (reserve- management, natural- baseline, and resource-
management) are discussed, as well as the success of the MAB
program in stimulating such activities. The potential for collaborative
research between paired reserves has not been realized. Technical
considerations in research and monitoring programs are also
discussed, including the importance of long- term and interdisciplinary
studies and of data management.
Key words: baselines, natural areas, long-term research, ecosystem
research, data management, inventory.
Research is a key characteristic distinguishing the Biosphere Reserve (BR) Program
from many other conservation efforts. As early as the meeting of the Man and the
Biosphere (MAB) "Task Force on Criteria and Guidelines for the Choice and
Establishment of Biosphere Reserves" in May 1974, it was determined that one of the
three purposes or objectives of BR would be "to provide areas for ecological and
environmental research." Furthermore, research that would make a contribution to
"the theoretical and practical aspects of conservation and natural resources
management" was to be a part of the scientific program in addition to research
essential to management of the reserves (UNESCO 1974).
The concept of BR as sites for research relevant to resource management and solution
of related societal problems has both distinguished the program and made it attractive
to many developing nations. Demonstration and educational projects were viewed as a
logical extension of this research. Various strategies for integrating the preservation
objectives of BR with intensive research programs were proposed, including the use of
core areas with strict conservation objectives surrounded by buffer zones where
manipulative research and various consumptive land uses could be carried out.
The United States MAB Committee on Project 8 (Biosphere Reserves) developed the
concept of paired reserves in the biotic provinces of the United States (Franklin 1977).
This concept recognized that it was seldom possible to identify a single area that
satisfies all criteria — a large, strictly preserved tract for conservation of a full array of
organisms, with a substantial history of research and monitoring and potential for major
experimental treatments. The outstanding conservation areas in the United States are
typically either national parks or wilderness areas and have limited research histories
and potential for experimentation. Many of the outstanding ecological research sites
are, on the other hand, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and Agricultural
Research Service Experimental Forests and Ranges and Experiment Stations.
Collaborative, MAB-oriented research programs were to be developed between the
1 Chief Plant Ecologist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, Oregon
57
58
conservation and experimental elements of the BR cluster established in each of the
biotic provinces.
Broadly-based research programs have, therefore, been a basic element of the BR
program from its initiation. Three important categories of research appropriate to
BR- reserve-management, natural- baseline, and resource- management research- are
identified in this paper and illustrated with examples. Successes and falures in
achieving the original concept are reviewed. In addition, technical considerations for
BR research and monitoring programs, such as the importance of holistic and
interdisciplinary projects, long term commitments, collaboration between BR, data
management, and varied logistical support are given. The paper concludes with a
discussion of the critical need for agency support in developing the necessary programs.
SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMS IN BIOSPHERE RESERVES
If we look at BR in the context of a regional resource with broad objectives of
improving resource management and conservation within a biotic province, three
categories of research and monitoring seem apparent. These are: (1) reserve-
management research designed to help fulfill the conservation objectives of BR;
(2) natural-baseline research designed to provide baseline and other information on
natural ecosystems for use either outside or within a BR; and (3) resource- management
or land-use research to provide information on management of natural resources for
consumptive uses.
Reserve-Management Research
Reserve- management research is related specifically to the management needs of the
BR, providing information needed to achieve its conservation objectives. On properties
such as the national parks and wilderness, this research usually relates to preserving the
diversity and integrity of natural ecosystems and processes, to maintaining populations
of specific species, and, in some cases, to restoring natural conditions.
Most of us are familiar with this category of research, which is typically oriented
toward problem-solving. There are many examples. Such projects characterize the
research programs supported by the National Park Service (U.S. Department of the
Interior). Studies of fire ecology (including natural fire regimes and prescribed
burning), structure and dynamics of animal and plant populations, and control of
introduced species are typical. Such projects have relevance to other ecosystems and
resource-management programs in a biotic province. The primary objective of this
research, however, is the solution of management problems within the BR.
Natural-Baseline Research
Use of BR for natural baselines can take two major forms: first, surveys, research
projects, and monitoring programs to provide information on the status and trends of
ecosystem processes, organisms, or elements, including pollutants; and second, as sites
for studying ecosystems and landscapes to provide information on natural processes,
structures, and especially, linkages between landscapes and ecosystem components.
BR are already undergoing extensive use as ecological baselines. A program for
monitoring pollutants in the soil, water, vegetation and atmosphere was developed by
59
Wiersma and his associates (Wiersma et al. 1978). This program has been implemented
at Olympic, Great Smoky Mountains, Glacier, and, on a preliminary basis,
Sequoia-Kings Canyon BR, providing information on regional background levels of
various organic and inorganic pollutants.
BR are also being used as sites for studying undisturbed ecosystems as well as the
ecology of natural populations of specific organisms. The information from such studies
contributes to the basic scientific understanding of the natural resources of a biotic
province and sometimes proves immediately relevant to resource-management
problems.
A study of the alluvial forest ecosystems of the Hoh River Valley in the Olympic BR
exemplifies the practical value of such research (Franklin 1981, Starkey et al. 1982). A
significant discovery was the importance of tributaries— side channels and terrace
streams- -to the main river channel; over 90 percent of the fish production, which
included several anadromous species, was associated with these habitats that had
previously been ignored by forestry and fisheries managers elsewhere in the biotic
province. The Hoh River research also provided a natural baseline for fine sediments in
spawning gravels; this was applicable as a standard for levels of silt tolerable to
spawning anadromous fish in rivers outside the reserve.
Natural-baseline research inevitably serves both the BR and natural resources in the
biotic province at large. Any studies that elucidate the current status or trends in
pollutants, for example, assist in identifying potential management problems.
Similarly, expanded knowledge of ecosystem structure and behavior or of the ecology of
species will typically prove useful in the management of a BR, even if it is currently
unrelated to a recognized management problem.
Natural-baseline and reserve-management research may overlap substantially.
Monitoring of natural populations or ecosystem processes may, for example, be
essential parts of reserve-management programs. Problem-oriented baseline programs
can contribute significantly to the basic understanding of ecological processes within
biotic provinces. The acid precipitation studies being established in several of the
national parks provide excellent examples; baseline information essential to park
management programs is being obtained simultaneously with knowledge of ecosystem
composition, structure, and function.
The large conservation reserves provide some unique and critical research opportunities
for their biotic provinces (Franklin 1981). These include the opportunities to study
(1) large, natural landscapes and drainage basins, (2) populations of large animals,
including ungulates and predators, and (3) large-scale patterns of natural disturbances,
as well as (4) serving as baselines for pollutant levels. National parks are superior to
wilderness areas under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, or the Fish and Wildlife Service for most of these purposes because there
are fewer unnatural influences, such as hunting and grazing, within the national parks.
Resource-Management Research
There is a large and continuing need for research on the development and evaluation of
methods for consumptive use and management of natural resources within biotic
provinces. BR were intended to contribute to such research. Research on management
of timber, forage, wildlife and fisheries resources is appropriate, as is rehabilitation of
60
lands adversely affected by extractive processes such as ruining. In some biotic
provinces, the development of ecologically sound agricultural systems is a logical topic
for research programs.
A major element of MAB- related research is the development of technologies that
permit resource utilization consistent with the maintenance of the ecological integrity
of the biotic province. Strategies for production of multiple goods and services, such as
timber and water or agriculture and wildlife, are clearly high priority. Such research
typically relies on experimentation, often at the level of watersheds.
Examples of such research are common in the series of experimental forests and ranges
and experiment stations that are a part of the U.S. BR system. The research includes
studies of the effects of timber management practices on water yields, erosion, and
water quality; effects of alternative silvicultural systems on regeneration and growth of
various timber types; evaluation of alternative grazing systems for production of
domestic livestock and wildlife; and effects of various management practices on the
soil properties and long-term productivity of the land.
SUCCESSES AND FAILURES IN THE U.S. BIOSPHERE RESERVE PROGRAM
All three types of research are being done to at least some degree in the U.S. BR, but
rarely because of their BR status. Most have viable research programs, as would be
expected of areas that are the outstanding natural landscapes (national parks) and the
outstanding sites for natural resources experimentation (experimental forests and
ranges) in the United States. These programs have expanded during their tenure as BR,
but the emphases in the new and expanded programs have generally not reflected their
importance as part of this world system or the particular goals of the Bisophere
Reserve Program. Nor have they reflected the cluster concept as discussed below.
Several U.S. BR are receiving major research support after successfully competing in
the National Science Foundation's Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program. In
fact, six of eleven selected LTER sites — H. J. Andrews, Central Plains, Coweeta,
Jornada, Konza Prairie, and Niwot Ridge- are BR. This provides support for long-term
observations and experiments at these sites, contributing to all three categories of
research.
As mentioned earlier, several other U.S. BR have been selected as sites in the National
Park Service's acid deposition research program. These are currently Olympic, Rocky
Mountain, and Sequoia- Kings Canyon. While intended primarily as reserve-management
research (identifying threats to and impacts on park resources), this program also
produces natural- baseline data for their biotic provinces.
Some collaboration is taking place between core and experimental BR within some of
the biotic provinces. Joint studies have been made between Olympic and Cascade Head
BR in the Oregonian Province and between H. J. Andrews and Three Sisters BR in the
Sierra- Cascade Province. Collaborations are also developing between Coweeta and
Great Smoky Mountains BR in the Eastern Forest Province; this cooperation may extend
to the Hubbard Brook BR and the Oak Ridge National Environmental Research Park, the
latter an outstanding experimental area for which the Department of Energy continues
to refuse BR status.
61
The potential of the paired or cluster concept of the U.S. BR system is largely
undeveloped. This is extremely unfortunate for the progress of ecological science in
these provinces. Comprehensive research programs have to address both preservation
of the natural diversity- genetic, specific, and ecosystem- -and the sustained, balanced
use of natural resources. Balanced research and educational efforts similarly must
consider jointly the preservation and conservative use of a province's natural
resources. Collaborative efforts between research sites and staffs with these
complimentary perspectives would contribute significantly to faster advancement
toward these goals.
The concept of paired BR was also designed to provide for varied research within a
unified research theme. The national parks provide some unique opportunities, as
mentioned earlier, including research on essentially natural populations of larger,
wide- ranging ungulates and predators. The experimental areas, on the other hand,
provide sites where manipulative experiments are possible for both elucidating
ecological principles and testing various management concepts. Taken together, a
fuller range of research and staff is possible, along with greater overall relevance to
human societal objectives and needs.
Overall, the failure to recognize the potential in the BR system appears to be largely
institutional. Agencies managing these areas have limited funds and their own
priorities for the use of resources. These only occasionally converge with those of the
MAB program. The National Park Service has worked hardest at using its resources to
meet both internal and MAB objectives. Individual scientists and agencies funding
scientific programs probably merit criticism for not making maximum use of BR in
programs. It is critical that these sites play their appropriate roles in the developing
acid rain research programs. The Department of Energy and the Environmental
Protection Agency should extensively utilize BR in their watershed- level research
efforts; hopefully, they will.
An obvious problem is the lack of incentives for research collaboration among the BR in
a province. Given agency imperatives and budgeting procedures, neither scientists nor
research managers are encouraged to cooperate. Some incentives need to be developed
to stimulate agencies (on the larger scale) and BR (on the provincial scale) to develop
collaborative efforts on issues of common interest.
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN RESEARCH AND MONITORING
Points requiring emphasis in the development of research and monitoring programs in
BR are the need for:
• Long-term versus short-term studies.
• Holistic versus organismic studies.
• Comparative studies and networking.
• Inventories.
• Data management.
• Facilitation and logistical support of scientific efforts.
These are important considerations in all three types of research as well as in the
educational aspects of the BR programs.
62
Long-Term Perspective
Long-term programs of research and monitoring must be emphasized in BR. It is
increasingly apparent that long-term data bases are essential to the resolution of many
issues in both applied and basic research and in the identification of developing
problems, such as effects of pollutants (Likens 1983). Long-term experiments and
monitoring are needed to provide critical tests of hypotheses, measure rates of
long-term processes, provide baselines and illustrate trends, and identify and provide
information on episodic phenomena.
There are numerous illustrations of the importance of long-term data in ecological and
resource-management research. For example, important episodic phenomena, such as
freeze damage to saguaro cactus and reproductive patterns of coast redwood or
southwestern ponderosa pine, only emerge from such data sets. Important ecosystem
phenomena, such as the effects of insect defoliation on nutrient cycles (Swank and
others 1981) or impacts on water yields when converting forests from deciduous
hardwoods to conifers (Swank and Douglass 1974), can often be seen only in the context
of a long-term baseline.
A commitment to long-term research and monitoring also means a significant
commitment to field installations. It means long- term experiments involving
manipulations of ecosystems along with necessary instrumentation, often in the form of
water measuring and sampling facilities. It means permanent sample plots with
sufficient marking for their relocation and, often, identification of individual points or
organisms. It means establishment and maintenance of exclosures with adequate
preinstallation measurements and statistically sound designs. It means commitment to
collecting environmental and population baselines in which the initial instrumentation
or measurement is only the beginning of an extensive data collection and analysis
process. Continuity of measurements is absolutely critical, and it is an institutional
responsibility to perpetuate such programs through times of fiscal austerity and
personnel changes.
Modern tools, such as remote sensing techniques, can assist in efficient development of
these long-term data bases, but they cannot substitute for on- the-ground efforts.
There is no easy way to accomplish these goals, nor is there any substitute for thorough
knowledge of the natural history of the ecosystems and organisms of interest. The
marine monitoring program at Channel Islands BR illustrates the excellent
achievements that are possible when thorough biological knowledge is structured in
sound statistical designs to achieve well-defined objectives.
Holistic Perspective
Research in BR should emphasize a holistic, ecosystem perspective and the use of
interdisciplinary research teams. Most of the important ecological discoveries of the
last 15 years have been the result of research projects, such as the International
Biological Program, that approached ecosystems in their totality. Examples include
recognition of the rapid turnover and high energy requirements of roots and associated
below- ground plant parts; the importance of vegetative regrowth in minimizing nutrient
losses following disturbance; the importance of canopy- atmosphere interactions in
cycling of various substances; the importance of coarse woody debris in forests and
streams; and multiple pathways for nitrogen fixation in forest ecosystems.
63
Holisitic, interdisciplinary research efforts have special significance in BR programs
because most of today's important resource- management problems are inter-
disciplinary. Research on the importance of old- growth forests, effects of acid rain,
cumulative effects of manipulation of landscapes, effects of management on long- term
site productivity, control of introduced plants, and management of fisheries are simply
not susceptible to individual scientific efforts. Furthermore, many of these problems
have sociologic and economic dimensions that must be considered along with the
ecologic considerations. Scientists associated as agency personnel with a specific BR
have a particular responsibility in stimulating research projects and in providing
scientific syntheses that have a whole- system perspective.
Comparative Studies and Networking
Collaborations between BR, both within and between provinces, are another important
concern. Comparative studies are essential to develop broad patterns in the structure,
function, and management responses of ecological systems. Ecosystems exhibit
gradients in the types and importance of various processes both between and within a
province. MacMahon (1981) illustrates broad patterns of this type in his comparison of
successional processes across the spectrum from desert to rain forest. A localized
example is the contrast in rates and causes of tree mortality within the coniferous
forests of the Pacific Northwest (Franklin et al. 1985). Comparative efforts will
clearly be required to place local studies in the regional, national, and world context.
Development of and participation in national and international networks is a systematic
approach to comparative research. Several programs of this type have been developed
or proposed, including the National Atmospheric Deposition Program, the Global
Environmental Monitoring System, and the Integrated Global Background Monitoring
Network proposed by Wiersma (1984). Programs of this type are extremely important
both in linking BR and in developing broad perspectives on important problems. More
limited collaborative experiments or studies are also important, however, as illustrated
by a proposal for the exchange of wood samples in a reciprocal study of the rates of
wood decay between H.J. Andrews and Coweeta BR.
BR can and should also associate themselves in more loosely structured comparative
efforts. Sampling protocols can be established for the collection of meteorological
data, design and measurement of permanent sample plots and transects, animal
censusing, and monitoring of ecological processes, such as litterfall. Standardized
procedures would facilitate comparative analyses and exchange of information between
BR. An example is the use of common procedures to establish permanent forest sample
plots in the Pacific Northwest and the southern Appalachians.
Inventories
Inventories of the physical and biological resources of a BR are essential to any
research and education program. I have not emphasized this particular activity because
many U.S. BR are rapidly improving their inventory base. Inventory takes many diverse
forms, from geologic and topographic mapping, to periodic aerial photo coverage, to
preparation of checklists for individual groups of organisms.
There are a number of documents available that outline the types of inventory data
important in BR. Three general comments concern prioritizing, availability, and
64
bootlegging of inventories. Regarding the first, most of us have been involved in
preparing lists of parameters for inventory. The listings invariably exceed any
forsceable inventory resources. Some types of inventory, such as aerial photo coverage,
are so fundamental and have such wide application that they must be given funding
priority. Second, inventories must be generally available to scientists and managers.
This may be in the form of computerized data sets, or as publications; the printed page
still has great value, as illustrated by bibliographic listings (for example, Gaskin and
others 1984) and annotated checklists of organisms (for example, Voegtlin 1982). Third,
inventories will have to be accomplished as parts of other research or management
programs. For example, major inventory needs in BR are often for lower organisms,
such as lichens and fungi, and for many groups of invertebrates. Support for surveys of
such organisms has been hard to obtain despite their critical importance in many
ecosystem processes. Scientists and managers need to link these inventories to more
popular programs. Such linkage with functional research or management projects may
actually be a preferred approach, as it will help to keep inventories timely and focused.
Geographically- oriented inventories are increasingly important, and many computer-
based approaches exist. Some techniques effectively use sample-based models to
generate landscape- level ecological data based on topographic maps (Kessel 1979).
Documentation and Data Management
An emphasis on long-term research necessitates a substantial commitment in BR
programs to all aspects of data management. This includes thorough documentation of
the procedures used in the research and monitoring programs and reduction and
archiving of data sets. Data must be available to scientists and managers in a clean
form and at the appropriate level of resolution. Financial resources and dedicated
personnel are essential; useful guidelines for the management of ecological data sets
are available, most recently from the symposium held in South Carolina in November,
1984.
Adequate documentation of locations of field installations and marking of individual
plots and organisms is an essential part of the documentation job. It is rarely done
adequately.
Facilities and Logistical Support
Research and monitoring programs require support in a variety of forms if they are to
develop and prosper. These include facilities for living and working, and logistical
support and data bases. Most BR provide some living facilities, but they are rarely
adequate. Working facilities should include provision of common scientific instruments,
such as balances and drying ovens, as well as space for sample preparation, specimen
identification, and other activities. Computer capabilities and working libraries and
specimen collections need to be available to scientific groups at a BR. Most scientists
and scientific programs will require data sets from the reserve's archives; providing
such data quickly and in commonly required formats should be a part of the data
management program at each reserve.
Many BR managers do appreciate the important role that logistical support, in its
varied forms, plays in attracting and developing major research and monitoring
programs. Witness the establishment of the Uplands Field Research Laboratory at
65
Great Smoky Mountains BR and the rapid development of programs at Sequoia- Kings
Canyon BR. All things being equal, and sometimes even unequal, scientists will tend to
go where their work is facilitated and appreciated.
CONCLUSIONS
Research and educational programs oriented toward both ecological preservation and
resource utilization are objectives of the BR program. Implications include the use of
"core" reserves for research and monitoring programs relevant to information needs
elsewhere in the biotic province, rather than simply for research needed to manage the
core reserve. Also implied is the design of collaborative research programs among BR
within a biotic province. Many relevant activities are underway in U.S. BR, but few are
a consequence of the MAB program or reserve status. Collaborative efforts among BR
clusters are very limited.
Research programs in almost all BR require expansion. These programs should
emphasize long-term perspectives; holistic, interdisciplinary approaches; collaborations
in comparative studies and in national and international monitoring networks;
completion of inventories; and cooperation with other reserves in the biotic province in
developing MAB- -oriented research and educational programs. Data management should
receive increased emphasis. BR managers can strongly encourage appropriate scientific
use by providing logistical support and exhibiting positive attitudes.
Agency support is absolutely critical in attaining MAB objectives for BR. Institutional
nurturing of such programs through financial and personnel incentives is one example;
institutional commitments to the stability of long-term research and monitoring
programs is another. Such commitments appear to have been more common early in the
history of the Forest Service and Park Service and need to be reaffirmed.
LITERATURE CITED
Franklin, Jerry F. 1977. The biosphere reserve program in the United States. Science
195: 262-267.
Franklin, Jerry F. 1981. Wilderness for baseline ecosystem studies. In: Proceedings,
International Union of Forest Research Organizations, XVII World Congress,
Division 1, p. 37-48.
Franklin, Jerry F., Mark Klopsch, Karen Luchessa and Mark Harmon. 1985. Mortality
in mature and old- growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. Typewritten
manuscript.
Gaskin, Julia W., James E. Douglass and Wayne T. Swank. 1984. Annotated
bibliography of publications on watershed management and ecological studies at
Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, 1934-1984. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service General Technical Report SE-30, 140 pp. Asheville, NC: Southeastern
Forest Experiment Station.
Kessel, Stephen R. 1979. Gradient modeling. 432 p. New York: Springer- Verlag.
Likens, Gene E. 1983. A priority for ecological research. Ecol. Soc. Amer. Bull.
64: 234-243.
66
MacMahon, James A. 1981. Successional processes: comparisons among biomes with
special reference to probable roles of influences on animals. In: West, D. C,
H. H. Shugart and D. B. Botkin (eds.), Forest succession concepts and application.
p. 277-304. New York: Springer- Verlag.
Starkey, Edward E., Jerry F. Franklin and Jean W. Matthews. 1982. Ecological
research in national parks of the Pacific Northwest. 142 p. Corvallis, OR: Oregon
State University, Forest Research Laboratory.
Swank, Wayne T. and James E. Douglass. 1974. Streamflow greatly reduced by
converting deciduous hardwood stands to pine. Science 185: 857-859.
Swank, W. T., J. B. Waide, D. A. Crossley and R. L. Todd. 1981. Insect defoliation
enahances nitrate export from forest ecosystems. Oecologia 51: 297-299.
UNESCO. 1974. Task Force on criteria and guidelines for the choice and establishment
of biosphere reserves. UNESCO MAB Report Series No. 22, 61 p. Paris, France.
Voegtlin, D. J. 1982. Invertebrates of the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Western
Cascade Mountains, Oregon: a survey of arthropods associated with the canopy of
old-growth Pseudotsuga menziesii. Oregon State University, Forest Research
Laboratory Special Pub. 4, 29 p. Corvallis, OR.
Wiersma, G. 1984. Integrated global background monitoring network. Proceedings of
Symposium: Research and Monitoring in Circumpolar Biosphere Reserves, Waterton
Lakes, Alberta, Canada, August 27-31, 1984. In press.
Wiersma, G. Bruce, Kenneth W. Brown and Alan B. Crockett. 1978. Development of a
pollutant monitoring system for biosphere reserves. Environmental Protection
Agency Environmental Monitoring Series EPA- 600/4-78-052, 113 p. Washington,
D.C.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN BIOSPHERE RESERVES
Roland H. Wauer1
Abstract. Resource management is defined as any activity related
to maintaining or achieving a given ecological condition in accordance
to the area's management objectives. It involves a systematic process
of resource protection that includes planning, research, monitoring
interpretation, and implementation. Each part is interrelated and must
benefit the natural and human landscapes therein. Specific ideas are
included for use in developing a comprehensive resource management
program within the biosphere reserve zone of influence.
Key words: Biosphere reserve, implementation, interrelationships
management objectives, neighbors, resource management, techniques
zone of cooperation.
We have so far heard a good deal at this conference about biosphere reserves in concept
and in practice (Eidsvik, this conference), their role in the United States (Gregg this
conference), objectives and nature of scientific programs (Franklin, this conference)
and public communications and development of a conservation ethic (Cherem this
conference). The speakers have drawn from their own experience and knowledge and
trom the available literature in discussing their areas of interest. And some have
incorporated management responsibilities within their presentations. It is this area
where I want to place my emphasis, because the success or failure of the biosphere
reserve concept is directly related to the collective efforts that biosphere reserve
managers provide to this program.
It is well understood in this country, particularly within the governmental workforce
that successful programs are largely the result of independent and aggresbive
individuals, often in spite of organizational constraints. I believe that it is essential
that American and Canadian area managers take the leadership role in developing the
biosphere reserve concept. The need of this leadership was emphasized by our European
colleagues at a 1983 International Working Conference in the Federal Republic of
Germany. The message received was that "European countries expect and want
America to take the lead in resource protection on a worldwide scale. The amount of
protection that European countries provide their (own) natural and cultural resources is
directly related to examples provided by America" (Wauer, 1983). We. in this and in
other developed countries, have an unwritten obligation to carry the banner of resource
management.
What do we mean by "resource management?" How does it apply to the biosphere
reserve concept?
First and foremost, it is a systematic process of resource protection. It incorporates all
the pieces of a multidisciplinary matrix into a comprehensive perspective for the
long-term perpetuation of an area's natural systems. It is more than planning and
implementation. It also involves the activities of interpretation, monitoring and
research. It can be defined as any activity related to maintaining or achieving a given
ecological condition in accordance to the area's management objectives.
Assistant Superintendent, Resources Management and Science, Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, Gatlinburg, Tennessee
67
68
Management Objectives
Logicians tell us that when we want to solve a problem we should begin with the
thinking process. Otherwise we are apt to go off on another pathway entirely. It is a
little like a group of blind men assigned the task of describing an elephant. Locating
each man at a different part of the elephantine body is sure to create
misunderstandings and divergent perceptions. It is crucial to the success of a project
that each participant perceive all of the pieces similarly, and each reach the same or
compatible conclusions. The initial step to assure compatibility in the case of biosphere
reserves starts with the development of area management objectives that are based
upon legislation and other mandates.
It is not enough for the manager to understand only the mandates of the agency, he
must also understand the intended functions of the biosphere reserve. Gregg (1984)
listed five of these — conservation, monitoring, research, education and cooperation —
and stated that "the success of a reserve is determined largely on the basis of how
effectively they are integrated to improve the health of a region's ecosystem and the
well-being of its people."
I have incorporated these five functions into six natural resource management
objectives that can be used for biosphere reserves; they are appended to this paper in
the conference proceedings.
DISCUSSION
Management objectives provide that essential skeletal outline of which a program of
resource protection can be built. The objectives serve as guideposts for a direction that
must encompass numerous pieces of a matrix that involve both the realities of the
individual management unit, including its neighbors, as well as the constraints imposed
by organizational and national factors.
All of the parks and other protected lands, no matter their size, location, or purpose,
continue after their establishment and dedication to be an integral part of the region's
natural and human landscapes. Establishing area boundaries in themselves changes very
little. Although the new reserve may subject people to new laws and regulations, we
and our neighbors are still regulated by the productivity of all the land, interchange
with our families and neighbors, and a myriad of other direct and indirect influences
affecting our daily activities.
For the most part, those influences that have major impacts upon park or forest values
also affect our neighbors and the environment in which we jointly rely upon for our
existence. The magnitude of airborne pollutants, the intrusion of non- native animals
and plants, and all of the known and unknown threats can impair the natural systems on
which we all depend. And when we look around us to determine from whence the
threats evolve, we find that the polluters of the air, the water and our land are often
our nearest neighbors.
69
The biosphere reserve concept that has evolved from the Man And the Biosphere
Program is designed to address this concern head-on. It is designed to evoke greater
unity between peoples on both sides of the boundaries for their mutual well-being. It
involves a much broader area of involvement than before. It recognizes a naturally
regulated core area that provides a life-support system that benefits a large
surrounding area of influence. That core area, whether it is a national park or
equivalent reserve, when kept relatively free from major impacts to the principal
pieces of the fabric, provides such free services as maintaining the quality of the
atmosphere, soils and fresh water, providing pollinators and nutrients for crops, helping
to control pests and vectors of diseases, as well as those values of recreation,
aesthetics and spirituality. Myers (1972) got to the heart of the matter when he said,
"The worlds on both sides of the park boundary would get along better if there were a
clear indication of what each can do for the other. By contrast, if they spend their
energy resisting one another, there is little doubt as to which must be the ultimate
The best method of resolving problems is by making everyone part of the process.
People working together to solve a problem and equipped with all the facts will most
often respond in favor of their long-term well-being. In cases when this method does
not work satisfactorily, minds are more often changed by friends than they are by
antagonists. Cooperation is not a one-way road, but a mutual effort directed toward a
state of harmony between man and the land. The preferred result is true conservation
that might be defined as intelligent cooperation with nature.
Gregg (1984) pointed out the importance of including traditional land use practices
within the biosphere reserve to illustrate harmonious relationships between indigenous
populations and the environment. This idea already is incorporated within many of
America's national parks, and is most conspicuous within designated "historic
districts." The expansion of this concept to outside of the park boundary to throughout
a zone of cooperation has major implications that should be considered within the
context of both resource maintenance and interpretation. Consider expanding an
historic district to outside of the park unit throughout the zone of influence. And
consider this zone one in which we provide various types of resource maintenance that
is determined to be mutually beneficial.
An example of this cooperative spirit might relate to the control of exotic plants that
impact upon both the park values and the economic interests of a neighbor. Agency
efforts to control kudzu in the east or tamarisk in the southwest would have
considerable benefit to both the park and its neighbors. This activity might be made
part of an agreement with' the county or state that incorporates certain control efforts
in exchange for certain concessions of our neighbors that would provide for greater
protection to the park resources.
Hoose (1981) wrote that "More elements of natural diversity are destroyed through
ignorance than through malice. Nearly everyone has heard horror stories about a
habitat that was destroyed deliberately by landowners wishing to avoid property
restrictions ... We don't hear as much about the habitats that are destroyed every day
by people who might well have adjusted their plans had they known that something
special occurred on their property."
70
Where do we start? How can better information be effected to minimize the losses?
The answer, or at least a good part of the answer, is readily available. The National
Park Service already has developed an excellent system of public education. We have
over the years expanded our system of interpretation so that the public's acceptance of
almost everything we do is directly related. Our interpretive methods and techniques
have been copied worldwide. But we have seriously damaged this system in recent
years. Interpretation has taken the brunt of budget cutbacks time and time again.
Although yearly reductions did not create an immediate disaster, our actions have now
caught up with us and our natural and cultural resources are suffering most.
We cannot continue to strangle the park's principal method of communications with our
neighbors without misunderstandings and increasing abuse of our landscapes and the
values for which the park were established to preserve. I believe that the increased
negative attitudes that land managers have received from our publics in recent years
are directly related to the degradation of our interpretive programs. Stewart L. Udall
(1963) said that, "Conservation begins with education, and past experience makes it
plain that public men will not lead unless a conservation conscience is developed which
prizes the choice things of nature."
Biosphere reserve interpretation should be premier examples of this function. It must
perform a dual role. One role is that of effective education to enhance a visitor's
understanding and appreciation of the park or forest, including its area of wilderness
and all of the ecosystem interactions. A second role, and one that is just as important
within the biosphere reserve perspective, is the outreach program that deals with
education outside of the park or forest. Although managers usually communicate, and
usually very effectively with local businesses and the media, a constant and wide based
communcations network is necessary to reach all of the publics. Gregg and Zube (1984)
stated that "Public communications in biosphere reserves should have a strong focus on
the interrelationships and interdependence between human beings and natural
ecosystems. Programs should encourage people to think about how the quality of the
earth's ecosystems is affecting their lives and the lives of people around the world."
The most effective outreach program is one that includes demonstrations and provides
some extension services on problems and solutions, one that utilizes the information
obtained by the research and monitoring activities, and includes policy and legal
implications. Houston (1971), in discussing this issue, stated that "The interpretation of
ecosystems to park visitors" (and park neighbors) "provides an opportunity to contribute
to an environmental ethic that extends beyond the park environment."
It is the associated research and monitoring activities that provide the most likely
pathway to ecosystem restoration and stability. Without it we will be unable to
reassemble missing pieces of our ecosystem puzzle. We could not predict how a
disturbance at one level of a system would affect the system as a whole unless we
understood how the communities are organized biologically- how each part of the
system interrelates — and when and what change occurs.
The research function is implicit with biosphere reserves, and must be integrated within
the foundation of all the other activities. Baseline and ecosystem process information
are equally important to permit the manager to predict the effects of any disturbance
upon the system as a whole. Geist (1982) said that "No impediment ... is greater than
ignorance, it defeats the best of good will, courage, and skills."
71
Most good research is a result of a multidisciplinary approach. It stands to reason that
understanding a species, habitat or community requires an array of knowledge that few
individuals possess. Even our best ecologists depend upon others to supply them with
parts of the answer. Our best scientists understand this and utilize the systems
approach.
We managers tend to want to resolve a critical issue too often by considering only the
most relevant details, even when those details depend upon a lower level of unavailable
data. It is vitally important that we accept the fact that baseline inventories are vital
to the intelligent management of our resources, and we therefore give higher priority to
those surveys and inventories that we just never seem to have funds and time to start.
Research undertaken to address specific issues too often can produce randomized
results that lead us in either split directions or over very shaky ground. Although good
scientific interpolation may produce the correct answers, this method can fail us in
court. To paraphrase Durward Allen, we must be correct the first time, and no one yet
has found a better way to be sure of that than through good research.
Just as important as baseline data at the other extreme, is the need for long-term
research to examine issues of longer duration. Research based on one season or one
species may not provide the data necessary to address questions that include time and
cycles. We as managers must recognize that long-term research is necessary and will
pay off in large dividends in the long run. We must examine these issues critically and
place our priorities into a holistic perspective.
We tend to concentrate the greater part of the area research within the core areas, and
this is probably most appropriate, but we also should consider studies within the zone of
cooperation. Examples of these kinds of projects might relate to air and water quality,
wildlife, effects of agriculture and ranching practices, and the spread and control of
exotic species. And these studies should include the social sciences as well as the
biological sciences.
The 1963 National Academy of Science report to the Park Service included a paragraph
that I would like to quote. The report stated:
"National Parks are . . . more than areas of importance for the aesthetic,
spiritual, inspirational and educational values inherent in their physio-
graphic and biological features. They are irreplaceable natural laboratories
in which scientific studies can be carried out which would not be possible
in even the most elaborate and conventional man-made laboratory. In the
national parks it is possible to study the structure, interrelations and
behavior of biological communities, discover how they are adapted to their
environment and compare them with the artificial communities elsewhere
created by the clearings, drainages, and contamination, and by the intro-
duction of exotic animals and plants by man. They offer the opportunity
to pursue long-term ecological studies difficult, if not impossible, to
conduct elsewhere."
In a sense, the natural areas of parks and forests that occur within biosphere reserves
provide the control sites for the larger areas of influence. The core areas provide the
only standard or common denominator by which management activities can
scientifically be evaluated. They are the only known reference points from which we
can draw indisputable conclusions about human and natural influences upon the
72
ecosystem. Although the emphasis usually is local or regional, global environmental
concern should also be addressed whenever possible. Long-term monitoring within
these core areas, designed as regional early-warning systems, is of utmost importance
if we are to perpetuate that life-support system.
Monitoring is an extension of research because it involves the long-term data- gathering
that is required for understanding of trends and the detection of perturbations that we
might not detect otherwise. It includes the use of controls to detect changes in
environmental conditions, or to discern whether a newly implemented program is
working out as well as expected. Or it may be utilized as a means to adjust activities
to a prescribed standard.
The question of research priorities is one all managers struggle with. Although these
are often determined by issues that reach a critical stage, or are expected to become
critical, there is one underlying theme that always is worthy of consideration, and is
particularly important for biosphere reserves. That is the retention of or restoring of
the area's genetic diversity.
Managers of natural systems need to manage for the perpetuation of the natural
processes including the restoration of certain missing pieces of the matrix. This
standard will, in the long-run, provide for greater resource protection by allowing for
the natural properties to care for themselves. High species diversity generally signifies
stable communities. The higher the diversity the longer the food chains, more cases of
symbiosis and greater the possibilities for negative feedback, which reduce oscillations
and hence increase stability (Margelef 1958).
The wild things of this earth represent a reservoir of genetic materials that we can ill
afford to lose. We cannot predict or in any way foresee the ways that unidentified
species may someday prove valuable. It is therefore vitally important that examples of
our world be preserved intact with the minimum of human-induced influences for the
time that man is wiser and possesses greater technology. Although we have great
knowledge now, our ability to comprehend is multiplied every passing year.
The truth today, however, is that biosphere reserve managers are now in positions to
provide the required environmental protection to valuable gene pools. We cannot wait
for another chestnut blight before taking action; it is then too late. We have the
opportunity now to protect and to restore. It should be our highest priority to
reconstruct, whenever scientifically feasible to do so, the natural fabric within our
areas of responsibility so that the natural processes that once provided their own
stability and protection can again function properly. That task is our responsibility, and
we should provide it our utmost attention and energy.
Let us recognize that our scientists are on our side in the battle of resource protection.
They are not second-class citizens but an intricate part of the team. We must assure
them the work space, equipment and personnel to do their part of the job.
Tools and Techniques
The caring for the biosphere reserve requires a personal commitment. It also requires
the willingness to implement a systematic approach to resource management.
Managing systematically involves the documentation of the issue, development of
alternatives, the selection of the best method to address the issue, the assignment of
the various tasks to the most appropriate individuals, and the monitoring of the results.
73
This process makes the scientists, resource specialists, interpreters and protectors all
part of the same program. It makes the scientists responsible for an adequate
database. It makes the resource specialists responsible for implementing specific
action plans, protectors for the protection of the resources, and interpreters for the
public support that is essential to the success of any one of the activities. It places
management in the role of guidance and overview. It recognizes the importance of
subjective judgment over total scientific management, but at the same time insists upon
the use of good and adequate information.
The documentation of this process is the essence of the area's resource management
plan, which is prepared by the area staff so that all pertinent individuals are permitted
to contribute. All actions included should be allocated to specific individuals to assure
compliance, and annual performance standards need to reflect those determinations.
National Park Service plan guidelines (NPS 1980) already are available, and every
manager has responsibility for the area plan. This pivotal document requires annual
review and updating, and is the heart of the systematic process of resource
management. Without it, actions taken are more likely to be inconsistent, redundant,
ill-conceived or mismanaged. Without a clear direction for each issue,
seat-of-the-pants decisions dominate. One manager may choose inaction, another may
take action too quickly without information and without documentation of what was
done (Peter White, pers. comm.).
The body of the resource management plan is a series of project statements that
address all of the area's resource issues. Some of these topics are more obvious than
others. For example, the management of major wildlife such as deer, elk and bears, or
backcountry and fire management, as well as endangered and the significant exotic
species are most obvious. But some of the more subtle and often ignored issues may be
important as well. Some examples include visitor use within the frontcountry,
long-term monitoring, adjacent land-use practices, and reevaluation of landscapes for
rezoning.
This latter issue is one that should receive greater attention early-on because it is
critical within the context of the greater biosphere reserve. Wilderness, historic
districts, various special protection zones, forests, ranch lands and agricultural lands
must all be included. The already designated zones may need realignment. Although
we must accept zones of heavy visitor use, we must also designate zones that cannot be
visited at all except for scientific research. And we must get on with this evaluation
even though we may at first be unsure of the results, because the process itself is sure
to create a broader perspective out of which can evolve a more beneficial and holisitic
commitment by everyone involved. As Aldo Leopold (1947) so nobly stated, "A land
ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain
member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow members, and also respect
for the community as such."
One of the most critical issues that land managers face today is the lack of sufficient
personnel and funds. Sheard and Blood (1973) suggested that agencies utilize the
importance of biosphere reserves more often as the keynote for programs that provide
protection to natural systems. Biosphere reserve managers have done just that, but I
suspect that most of those justifications have little substance. We need to understand
the concept and to prepare justifications around the functions and objectives, and
perhaps more importantly, the regions and the central office must recognize the
importance of biosphere reserves so that such a designation carries added clout.
74
Training of personnel and the education of non-personnel is also implicit within the
concept of biosphere reserves. Although the Park Service already has a broad and
successful employee training program, specific resource management training, directly
oriented toward biosphere reserves, should be developed and made available. This
effort should utilize the wide range of topics and papers previously prepared on the
issue (Henning 1973; Curry-Lindahl 1974; Kilgore 1979; Wauer 1980). People who have
knowledge share the responsibility to help resolve the problems and concerns of our
environment.
There are a number of specific tools of which the biosphere reserve manager should be
well acquainted. It is vitally important that he keep himself abreast of the most
up-to-date methods and techniques, some of which have been made part of the poster
session of this conference. Three in particular are worthy of your review, in my opinion.
The visitor impact management evaluation concept, that has been developed by the
National Parks and Conservation Association and University of Maryland (Graefe,
Vaske, Kuss 1983), is an extremely valuable method to evaluate visitor uses within
different zones to determine the necessities and priorities for mitigation. It is time to
recognize that we can't continue to cater to unlimited numbers of people without
destroying the very reasons these areas were so dedicated. In a theatre, when the seats
are full and only standing room exists, the manager does not jeopardize the showing by
allowing still more onlookers to impede the others. We are often so busy concerning
ourselves about perceived political conflicts that we overlook the public's acceptance
of certain restrictions. We can accomplish a good deal if we act with conviction, based
upon an adequate database, and articulate our reasons.
The threats evaluation methodology, recently developed by Dr. Gary Machlis and his
colleagues at the University of Idaho, provides a way to examine issues that might
cause undue hardship on park resources. The system involves an on-site workshop with
key staff members to ascertain threats and their potential impact upon park values. A
"Critical Resources Problem Workshop" (Machlis and Wright 1983) was held at Glacier
National Park in 1982 to examine issues at that biosphere reserve. Great Smoky
Mountains National Park Biosphere Reserve will utilize the updated format this winter
to reexamine its resource issues. I wholeheartedly recommend that all biosphere
reserve managers consider its use.
Information management is an issue that has previously been mentioned, but it is
another of those critical needs that cannot be over- emphasized. We not only must
assure ourselves that all of the currently available information is accessible to
management, interpretation and science, but that information on current and
anticipated activities is also readily available. We can no longer afford the leisure,
funds and personnel commitments for redundant or out-of-order projects, whether they
be research, monitoring or management. The networking of our resource information
tracking systems is essential. Several examples of how some parks and/or regions are
addressing this issue are included within the conference poster session.
CONCLUSIONS
The biosphere reserve concept is an extension of an environmental ethic beyond the
park or forest into the surrounding area of cooperation. The purpose is to instill in
others an understanding of the principles of conservation for our mutual benefit. To
assure success, it requires action that brings our neighbors into the planning and
75
decision-making processes relating to the greater biosphere reserve. It requires a
commitment on our parts that may be different than we have previously experienced.
It will require our utmost attention.
How we treat our environment will determine our future. It is within our power to take
a course of action that will force us in the future to live at a mere subsistence level. It
is also within our power to take the steps to help guarantee an improved quality of
living and a wide range of human choice for the future. If we wait too long it may be
impossible to keep available the opportunity of choice. Aldo Leopold (1947) wrote that
"obligations have no meaning without conscious, and the problems we face are the
extension of the social conscious from people to the land."
It is important to realize that we must use a good deal of prudence in establishing a
working biosphere reserve with our neighbors. We cannot afford misunderstandings or
mistrust to set back this and other programs. Although we know that our intentions do
not include additional land controls or purchases, this perception is one that could
occur, and we must take the greatest care that it does not.
Develop initial communications and trust around specific issues. Air quality
monitoring, wildlife management, and control of exotic plant species could provide the
most beneficial areas of mutual interest. Air, water, soil, minerals, vegetation and
wildlife are the basis of our existence and the measure of our future. The conservation
movement has progressed to the point that we now recognize the need for a longer
involvement in protecting our resources to the degree that the whole region must be
incorporated within a comprehensive program for our mutual benefit.
We are managers of the core and must see to it that that concept is made to work. It
may be our last hope. And that hope is more than our dedication to the concept. It is
our obligation to the future.
76
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
To protect and perpetuate the significant and diverse natural resources and support
systems therein, as free as possible from all adverse intrusions;
To establish and maintain a comprehensive research program that is responsible
to the long-term perspective of ecosystem processes;
To establish and maintain long-term ecological monitoring within the principle
habitats of the reserve that will provide for early-warning systems for the region;
To establish and maintain an interpretive program that is comprehensive in nature
and includes both in- house and outreach capabilities, that is ecosystem oriented and
involves man as an integral part of the biosphere;
To manage the unit within the greater purpose of the biosphere reserve that
incorporates a greater zone of influence within the management perspective in such
a way so as to form a cooperative association with all persons of mutual interest; and
To manage the unit within a systematic framework that incorporates all of the
functions and related activities into a multidisciplinary program to benefit the
natural and human ecosystems.
77
LITERATURE CITED
Curry- Lindahl, K. 1974. The global role of national parks for the world of tomorrow.
Horace M. Albright Conservation Lectureship, Univ. Calif., School Forestry
and Conservation.
Geist, V. 1982. Necessary wildlife management programs in biosphere reserves.
In: Towards the Biosphere Reserves: Exploring relationships between parks and
adjacent lands. Proc. Intern. Sympos. Eds: Scace and Martinka.
Graefe, A. R., J. J. Vaske and F. R. Kuss. 1983. Visitor impact management in
national parks: application principles and decision framework. Dept. Rec,
Univ. Maryland, College Park, MD.
Gregg, W. P., Jr. 1984. The international network of biosphere reserves: a new
dimension in global conservation (in press).
Gregg, W. P., Jr. and E. H. Zube. 1984. Communication to the public in U.S. biosphere
reserves. Report of a workshop, Arlington, VA., July 14-15, 1981.
Henning, D. H. 1973. Forest personnel: professional and environmental education.
Public Personnel Mgt., Nov-Dec.
Hoose, P. M. 1981. Building an ark. The Nature Conservancy, Wash., D.C.
Houston, D. B. 1971. Ecosystems of national parks. Science, 172:648-651.
Kilgore, B. M. 1979. Views on natural science and resources management in the
western region N.P.S., Univ. Wash. Coop. Park Studies Unit Report B-79-L
Seattle, Wash.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Univ. Press, N.Y.
Machlis, G. E. and R. G. Wright. 1984. A method of surveying the State of the Parks.
Univ. Idaho report CPSU/UI SB84-4.
Margalef, D. R. 1958. Information theory in ecology. Gen. Syst. 3:36-651.
Myers, N. 1972. National Parks in Savannah, Africa. Science 178 (4067): 1255-1263.
National Academy of Sciences. 1963. Report on an NAS- NRC Committee to the NPS
on research. Natl. Acad. Sci., Wash., D.C. report to NPS.
National Park Service. 1980. Memorandum on Resource Management Plans and
Resource Management Budget. (Dec. 12).
Sheard, J. W. and D. A. Blood. 1973. The role of national parks in Canada and criteria
for their management. Canadian Field- Naturalist, 87:211-224
78
Udall, S. L. 1963. The Quiet Crisis. Holt, Rinehardt & Winston. N.Y.
Wauer, R. H. 1980. The role of the National Park Service natural resources manager.
NPS, Univ. Wash. Coop. Park Studies Unit Report B-80-2. Seattle, Wash.
Wauer, R. H. 1983. Report on the international working conference, new directions for
conservation of parks. The George Wright Forum, Summer:18-31.
WORKSHOPS ON MANAGEMENT ISSUES
On the second day of the conference, the attendees divided into five work groups to
discuss the application of the biosphere reserve concept to specific management issues
commonly found in North American biosphere reserves. The co-chairpersons of each
workshop included a person with expert knowledge on the issue being discussed and a
manager of a prominent biosphere reserve where the issue is important. The resource
person first gave a background paper on the issue; then the manager summarized the
circumstances of the issue at the biosphere reserve site. Each workshop was followed
by a group discussion that explored how the MAB program could best be applied to the
issue at hand. No standard method was applied to orchestrate group interaction.
THE SKY HAS NO LIMITS: AIR POLLUTION AND BIOSPHERE RESERVES
Molly N. Ross1
Abstract. Gaseous and particulate pollutants emitted from manmade
stationary and mobile sources travel through the air to protected areas,
including biosphere reserves. These pollutants can injure and destroy
protected resources. For certain categories of areas, the law assigns
responsibility and establishes mechanisms for the protection of the
resources. The land manager can seize the opportunities thus created
by knowing the current and projected status of vulnerable resources and
harmful pollutants, determining the resultant effects on the resources
and on the purposes and values of the area, identifying the sources of
the harmful pollution, and taking all available actions to achieve
mitigation or elimination of such pollution.
INTRODUCTION
That the sky in many senses has no limits, and the outdoor air no bounds, poses serious
problems for those areas which civilization has marked for protection by painstakingly-
determined boundary lines on the ground and on maps. The pervasive air is a resource
in its own right and a critical factor in determining the quality of a biosphere reserve's,
or park's, other resources. Just among the National Park System lands in the
International Network of Biosphere Reserves, examples of resource degradation from
air pollution include the following:
• In Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, extensive visible ozone injury to
ponderosa pine and sequoia seedlings; apparent significant, widespread degradation
of scenic views from pollutant-caused visibility impairment;
• In Great Smoky Mountains National Park, visible ozone injury to white pine
throughout the park; red spruce decline at higher elevations, probably related to
ambient ozone concentrations, elevated concentrations of heavy metals in the
vegetation and soil, and acidic deposition; visibility impairment;
• In Isle Royale National Park, undetermined effects from elevated concentrations
of sulfur and heavy metals in park streams;
• In Everglades National Park, undetermined effects from elevated levels of sulfur
in epiphytes at the eastern edge of the park, and elevated levels of arsenic and
mercury in wildlife;
• In Big Thicket National Preserve, a decrease in the abundance of Spanish moss,
probably related to heavy metal pollution;
• In Big Bend National Park, significant visibility degradation, probably from
manmade sulfates.
The responsibility to protect the resources of these and other protected areas from air
pollution degradation is clear. For areas of the National Park System, the National
Park Service Organic Act directs the National Park Service to administer its areas
1 Assistant Chief, Air Quality Division, National Park Service. Washington, D.C.
82
consistent with their "fundamental" conservation purpose. For areas which have been
designated "Class I" air quality areas under the Clean Air Act, that Act charges the
Federal Land Manager (FLM) with an "affirmative responsibility" to protect the "air
quality related values" of the areas from "adverse impact." For areas which have been
designated as biosphere reserves, the Man and the Biosphere Program creates a moral
imperative to protect the areas as "secure" sites for research, resource management,
education and training. The available tools to protect the resources of these and other
protected areas, however, are not always commensurate with the protection
responsibility, for various legal and technical reasons.
What can managers do to address the problem of air pollution in their protected areas?
Among other things, managers can identify the resources and values to be protected,
inquire into current and projected ambient pollution concentrations, discover the
pollution concentrations which cause effects on sensitive resources, consider what
types and amounts of effects would constitute an "adverse impact" on the area,
determine the sources of pollution on the area, and take an active role in local, state,
and federal air pollution issues and proceedings.
THE NATURE OF AIR POLLUTION AND ITS EFFECTS
The air is a natural resource in its own right. The air is also critical to the quality of
other natural as well as manmade resources which parks, biosphere reserves, and other
special areas are supposed to protect. Gaseous and particulate pollutants emitted from
manmade stationary and mobile sources travel to protected areas through the air,
variously over short or long distances and in original or transformed states. Depending
on the chemistry of the particular pollutant, the meteorological, topographical, and
other environmental conditions, and the specific natural or cultural resources, polluted
air can harm protected resources in many ways. For example, air pollution can cause
leaching of important nutrients from the soil, acidification and other forms of water
quality degradation, and injury to the structure and/or function of vegetation; these
effects can, in turn, lead to changes in ecosystem structure, diversity, and function.
Air pollution can discolor and weather materials, such as historical buildings and
monuments, as well as natural rock formations. Air pollution can degrade visibility,
impairing one's ability to see and appreciate the form, contrast, detail and color of near
and distant features. Finally, air pollution can diminish human and animal health and
well-being.
Gaseous pollutants. The gaseous pollutants that most seriously jeopardize protected
resources are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide,
and hydrogen fluoride.
Sulfur dioxide is a pungent, though colorless and odorless gas, that results from the
combustion, smelting, or refining of sulfur- bearing fuels and ores. In the atmosphere, it
can be transformed into an acidic fine particulate, i.e., sulfate, probably the principal
component of both acidic deposition and visibility impairment. Sulfur dioxide pollution
can aggravate respiratory diseases, damage the lungs, and irritate eyes. It can corrode
building materials, paint, stone, metals, and electrical equipment. It can injure and
destroy vegetation: sulfur dioxide has been found to cause lichen deserts; serious injury
and growth reduction in Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, white pine, and forest shrubs; and
damage to various crops, including alfalfa, grains, squash, cotton, grapes, and apples.
Fossil fuel-fired power plants and industrial boilers, and copper and lead smelting and
refining operations, are major sources of sulfur dioxide emissions.
83
Nitrogen dioxide is a pungent gas, yellowish or reddish brown in color, that results from
combustion at high temperatures and pressures. In the atmosphere it can turn into
nitrate, pollutants associated with acidic deposition and visibility impairment. In the
presence of sunlight, nitrogen oxides can react with hydrocarbons to form
photochemical oxidants, particularly ozone. Nitrogen dioxide can irritate the eyes,
nose, and throat, and increase susceptibility to infection. It can suppress plant growth
and cause chlorosis of leaves. It can create a brown cloud, seen frequently over certain
urban areas, or a brown plume, associated with many coal-fired power plants. Although
natural sources of nitrogen oxides, such as biological decay and forest fires, produce
greater amounts of nitrogen oxides than manmade sources, it is the manmade sources
that contribute to significant pollution problems in particular areas. Major sources of
nitrogen oxides are coal-fired power plants, diesel and gasoline- fired motor vehicles,
and industrial boilers.
Ozone is an unstable, colorless, slightly sweet-smelling gas. It is a "derivative"
pollutant formed by the interaction of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in the presence
of sunlight. It is the most important of the "photochemical oxidant" pollutants which
create smog. Ozone is the most toxic pollutant to vegetation commonly found. Its
natural background levels are about 0.03-0.04 ppm, and injury to sensitive vegetation
has been found at 0.05 and 0.06 ppm. Ozone can cause serious injury to eastern white
pines, ponderosa pines, Jeffrey pines, hardwoods, crops, and other vegetation; aggravate
respiratory problems and impair breathing; irritate the eyes, nose, and throat; damage
paint, discolor dyes, and accelerate the disintegration of rubber. Major manmade
sources of ozone are the major sources of its precursor pollutants: for nitrogen oxides,
the sources listed in the paragraph above, and for hydrocarbons, diesel and gasoline-
fired motor vehicles as well as operations involving petroleum and petroleum products.
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, created by incomplete
combustion. Carbon monoxide is typically a localized pollution problem, magnified at
higher altitudes. Carbon monoxide can cause dizziness, headaches, and slowing of
mental processes; at higher concentrations, carbon monoxide can cause death. People
afflicted with heart disease, anemia, asthma, and other respiratory ailments are
particularly susceptible to carbon monoxide effects. Automobiles, trucks, and buses are
the principal sources of carbon monoxide.
Hydrogen sulfide is a toxic, corrosive gas characterized by an unpleasant "rotten egg"
odor which may not always be detected, however, at high concentrations. In addition to
its odor, hydrogen sulfide can kill humans and animals; injure and destroy plants; and
discolor and deteriorate paint and other building surfaces. Manmade sources of
hydrogen sulfide include flaring and production of so-called "sour" natural gas; certain
petroleum, chemical, geothermal, and metal refining processes; and kraft pulp and
paper manufacturing.
Hydrogen fluoride, which occurs in both gaseous and particle form, is the most toxic
pollutant to protected resources. Vegetation readily absorbs and accumulates it. Even
at very low levels, hydrogen fluoride can injure vegetation, e.g., causing needle death in
ponderosa and lodgepole pines, and leaf injury, leaf mortality, and growth reduction in
firs, mosses, and ferns. Animals which eat vegetation with accumulated fluoride levels
can develop serious defects in teeth and bones, disruption of enzyme functions, weight
and appetite loss, lameness, reduction in fertility and milk production, and death.
Sources of hydrogen fluoride include phosphate operations including fertilizer plants;
aluminum refining; iron and steel production; and brick, tile, and glass products
manufacturing.
84
Particulate pollutants. The term "particulate matter" encompasses a variety of
pollutants, both liquid and solid, toxic and harmless, organic and inorganic, visible and
microscopic, and the term "total suspended particulates" encompasses most of these
pollutants. Large particles, such as fugitive dust from mining and agricultural
operations, can cause soiling and nuisance. Relatively more serious for protected areas,
however, are the fine particle pollutants and toxic particle pollutants, described below.
Fine particle pollutants, such as the sulfates formed from sulfur dioxide and the
nitrates formed from nitrogen oxides, constitute one of the most difficult air pollution
problems today. Their small size, 2.5 microns or less in diameter, facilitates their long
distance transport, often hundreds of miles, before falling to earth. As effective light
scatterers, they degrade visibility by reducing visual range and acuity. Particles up to
10 microns in diameter can cause respiratory disease, exacerbate respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, impair health defense mechanisms, and result in morphological
alterations, carcinogenesis, and death. Atmospheric fine particles ultimately may be
deposited in dry form on soils or vegetation, or may be "precipitated out" as sulfuric or
nitric acid. This acid deposition/precipitation can degrade water quality, leach toxic
metals from the soil, and damage wildlife habitats and food sources, depending on the
characteristics of the receptor; it can also bleach and accelerate weathering of natural
rock formations and of manmade materials and structures.
Toxic particle pollutants include fluoride particles, discussed above; arsenic, a
carcinogen emitted from copper, lead, and zinc smelters; beryllium, a carcinogen used
in rocket fuels and metallic alloy production; asbestos fibers, an agent of lung disease,
often produced by the deterioration of motor vehicle brake linings; and lead, a cause of
kidney, brain, and central nervous system damage, primarily produced by combustion of
leaded fuels in motor vehicles.
AUTHORITIES FOR RESOURCE PROTECTION
The challenge of developing adequate measures for protection of the resources, values,
and purposes of biosphere reserves, units of the National Park System, and other special
areas, is tremendous. The difficulties include, among others:
• The complexities, uncertainties, and variety of possible interpretations of the
chemistry, biology, ecology, and other science, suggested by the above discussion
of the air pollutants;
• The complexities, uncertainties, and variety of possible interpretations in the
monitoring and modeling of air pollutant concentrations;
• The lack of consensus and precision as to what must be protected, to what
extent, and at what cost.
Nevertheless, the Clean Air Act and various management statutes potentially provide
the authority to protect the resources, values, and purposes of biosphere reserves, units
of the National Park System, and other special areas. The effectiveness of these
statutes seems to depend on the interpretations of those who administer the statutes,
the activism of those who administer the areas and those who care about them, and the
adequacy of information on the effects of air pollution.
The Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act (CAA), as enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977,
sets out to assure safe and acceptable ambient air quality throughout the nation. The
nationwide goal of the CAA is the attainment and maintenance of "national ambient air
85
quality standards" (NAAQS): "primary" standards to protect the public health "with an
adequate margin of safety," to be attained by dates certain, and "secondary" standards
to protect the national welfare, to be attained "within a reasonable time." The CAA, in
turn, defines "welfare" to include "effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, ... as well as effects on
economic values and on personal comfort and well-being."
NAAQS are air pollutant concentration levels, set on the basis of a scientific "criteria
document," without consideration of costs. NAAQS are required for pollutants
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare that are emitted from
numerous or diverse sources. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set
NAAQS for six "criteria pollutants," i.e., sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. State and local governments may set
additional, or more stringent, standards.
At any time, a particular area may be "cleaner" or "dirtier" than the NAAQS for a
criteria pollutant. The CAA supplements its nationwide goal of attaining and
maintaining NAAQS with specific goals for these "clean" and "dirty" areas. For the
clean and unclassified areas of the country, the CAA seeks to "prevent the significant
deterioration" (PSD) of the air quality, particularly in areas of special natural,
recreational, scenic, or historic value. For the "dirty" or "nonattainment" areas of the
country, the CAA demands that "reasonable further progress" be made toward the
attainment and maintenance of NAAQS.
In pursuit of its NAAQS, PSD, and nonattainment goals, the CAA imposes various limits
on emissions from individual pollution sources. These performance and emission
standards include:
• New source performance standards (NSPS), emission control standards for
categories of sources, such as new power plants and industrial processes;
• National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS);
• Best available control technology (BACT), best available retrofit technology
(BART), reasonably available control technology (RACT), and lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER), all specific standards applied in different
circumstances;
• Stack limitations, continuous emission controls, and other requirements to assure
that the methods used to implement standards do not eliminate one pollution
problem by creating another; and
• National motor vehicle emission control standards.
The CAA establishes the State Implementation Plan (SIP), or a substitute EPA plan, as
the means to effectuate the NAAQS, PSD, and nonattainment goals and to apply the
measures listed above. The SIP contains, at a minimum, all the federal air pollution
requirements enforceable in the state. The CAA requires that federal, state, and local
agencies, as well as the general public, be given adequate opportunity to comment on
the development and revision of SIP's. After preparing its SIP, the state must submit it
to EPA for approval. If approved, the SIP can be enforced by EPA and the federal
courts; indeed, the CAA requires EPA to enforce the SIP if the state fails to enforce it
adequately. If EPA disapproves the SIP, or if a state fails to submit a SIP, then EPA
must promulgate a substitute federal implementation plan.
86
Part C of the CAA, entitled "Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,"
deserves particular discussion as a prime authority for protecting the resources of
parks, biosphere reserves, and the like from air pollution damage. No doubt because
PSD "divvies up" the scarce clean air resource and protects special resources from
external activities, extensive litigation has marked the creation of PSD as well as each
stage of its development.
In certain respects, Part C is a resource protection statute. One of its purposes is "to
preserve, protect, arid enhance the air quality in national parks, national wilderness
areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or
regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value." PSD addresses resource
protection through the establishment of ceilings on additional amounts of air pollution
over baseline levels in clean air areas, the protection of the air quality related values of
certain special areas, and additional protection for the visibility value of certain special
areas.
More specifically, Part C reflects Congress' judgment that, among the "clean air"
regions of the country, certain areas- the "Class I" areas- -deserve the highest level of
air quality protection. Congress designated 158 areas as Class I areas, including
national parks over 6,000 acres, national wilderness areas over 5,000 acres, national
memorial parks over 5,000 acres, and international parks, in existence on August 7,
1977, the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments. At least sixteen of the
United States biosphere reserves are, or include, Class I areas (Table 1). Congress
further invited the states and Indian governing bodies to "redesignate" any other area
Class I, as certain Indian governing bodies have since done. In this regard, Class I status
would increase the opportunities for air quality protection in any biosphere reserve, and
seems particularly desirable for "core" areas whose resources should be "preserved" and,
as appropriate, "enhanced."
Table 1. — United States Biosphere Reserves Designated "Class I" for Air Quality
Regulation.
Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge (part)
Yellowstone National Park
Denali National Park and Biosphere Reserve (part)
Everglades National Park (including Fort Jefferson National Monument) (part)
Glacier National Park
Olympic National Park
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
Big Bend National Park
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Rocky Mountain National Park
Three Sisters Wilderness
Virgin Islands National Park
Isle Royale National Park
Hawaiian Islands Biosphere Reserve (Haleakala National Park; Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park)
South Atlantic Coastal Plain Biosphere Reserve (part)
California Coast Ranges Biosphere Reserve (part)
87
In these Class I areas, once "baseline" is triggered by submission of the first permit
application from a major new source, Part C allows only the smallest "increment" of
pollution to be added to the air. Thus far, the only "increments" to have bee^ set are
statutory increments for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter. EPA has not met the
statutory schedule for setting increments, or creating equivalent measures Tor
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, and nitrogen oxides.
Congress did not limit protection of Class I areas, however, to ceilings on additional
pollution. Congress also established a site- specific resource test, known as the
adverse impact" test, to determine whether emissions from (at least) major new
sources will cause an "adverse impact" on the "air quality related values" of the Class I
area. Originally conceived by industry advocates as a variance from the small Class I
increment, the adverse impact test was subsequently accepted by environmental
advocates as a means to protect Class I areas regardless of increment compliance or
violation In the case of a major new source (or expansion), the adverse impact test
works as follows:
• If the Federal Land Manager (FLM) determines, and convinces the permitting
authority, that the new source will adversely impact the Class I area's
resources- -even though the new source's emissions will not contribute to an
increment violation- a permit shall not be issued;
• If the FLM certifies that the new source will not adversely impact the Class I
area's resources— even though the new source's emissions will contribute to an
increment violation— the permitting authority may issue a permit.
The adverse impact test institutionalizes the FLM in new source permit review at an
early stage. It imposes an "affirmative responsiblity" on the FLM "to protect the air
quality related values (including visibility)" of Class I areas, and. as the Senate
committee wrote, "[ijn the case of doubt. . . . [to] err on the side of protecting the air
quality related values for future generations." "Air quality related values" include all
values in an area dependent upon and affected by air quality, such as scenic, cultural,
biological, and recreational resources, as well as visibility itself. The current working
definition of "adverse impact" is any impact that:
• Diminishes the area's national significance, and/or
• Impairs the structure and functioning of ecosystems, and/or
• Impairs the quality of the visitor experience.
In addition to increment ceilings and the adverse impact test, Congress enacted one
more resource protection measure for Class I areas, namely, "visibility protection" for
the 156 (of 158) statutory Class I areas where visibility is an "important value." In Part
C of the CAA, "Congress . . . declares as a national goal the prevention of any future,
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I federal
areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution." In this provision.
Congress expressed the national desire to preserve, for its own sake, the ability to see
long distances, entire panoramas, and specific features, both in and, as EPA has
interpreted the provision, from the statutory Class I areas. EPA is still developing the
regulatory program to assure "reasonable progress" toward the national visibility goal,
through new source review requirements, a visibility monitoring program, imposition of
T>est available retrofit technology" on major existing sources that impair visibility in
statutory Class I areas, development of "long-term (10-15 year) strategies," and
88
consideration of "integral vistas" viewed from within the protected areas. To date,
EPA's rulemaking proposals have addressed only "plume blight" and other visibility
impairment "reasonably attributable" to a specific source or sources. EPA has not yet
proposed regulations to address visibility impairment from "regional haze."
As the above discussion demonstrates, the CAA creates several opportunities and tools
for protecting the resources and values of Class I areas. New pollution after baseline in
Class I areas is generally limited to the small Class I increment, the FLM must
determine whether major new sources will adversely impact the areas, and measures
must be developed to protect the visibility of Class I areas from manmade pollution
impairment. The states must develop their PSD plans with FLM consultation and a
public hearing. Major new sources must undergo an equally public permit review,
involving air quality monitoring; analysis of resource impacts; application of "best
available control technology;" and effective emission ceilings based on the Class I
increment, NAAQS, adverse impact threshold, or possibly visibility impairment
threshold, whichever is the lowest. Existing sources may be regulated to protect
visibility or to remedy a violation of an increment, NAAQS, or arguably Class I resource
protection.
As demonstrated by its previously quoted purpose, Part C's concern for resource
protection is not limited to Class I areas. Congress designated all other "clean air"
regions of the country "Class II. Congress further prohibited redesignation not only of
statutory Class I areas to any other classification, but also of certain Class II areas to
the "dirtier" Class III classification. These so-called Class II "floor" areas include the
following areas when greater than ten thousand acres: national monuments, national
primitive areas, national preserves, national recreation areas, national wild and scenic
rivers, national wildlife refuges, national lakeshores and seashores; as well as national
parks and wilderness areas established since August 7, 1977. Class II increment ceilings
on additional pollution over baseline concentrations allow for moderate development in
Class II areas. Class II increments constitute an absolute ceiling on additional pollution
in these areas, because Congress did not qualify the Class II increment with an adverse
impact test.
Although the CAA does not create as many resource protection tools for Class II areas
as for Class I areas, it nevertheless creates opportunities. The FLM, or manager of a
biosphere reserve, can participate in State Implementation Plan proceedings, new
source reviews, and other federal, state, and local activities that potentially affect the
air quality of their areas. As appropriate, the land manager can undertake or encourage
efforts to redesignate the area to Class I. In the case of units of the National Park
System and perhaps other land management systems, managers also may have residual
authority, probably statutory and possibly common law, to protect their areas from
adverse air pollution impacts in most cases.
At this time, there are no "Class III" areas. States or Indian governing bodies have the
authority to redesignate to Class III any "clean air" area except a statutory Class I or
Class II "floor" area. Class III designation could allow for substantial air pollution
increases over baseline in the area. The redesignation process itself, as well as
subsequent new source reviews, provide opportunities for land managers to have their
air quality concerns considered.
For biosphere reserves, parks, or other protected areas that are in, or affected by, the
"dirty regions" of the country where the National Ambient Air Quality Standards have
not yet been met, Part C's Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions do not
apply. Instead, Part D of the Clean Air Act sets forth the requirements for these
89
"nonattainment" areas. As with Class II and III areas, the CAA does not establish an
explicit role (other than consultation) for the FLM, but it does require public
proceedings at various times. For example, the state must hold a public hearing prior
to promulgating a "nonattainment SIP." The nonattainment SIP is a plan for attaining
all national ambient air quality standards "as expeditiously as practicable," most
primary NAAQS by 1982, and primary NAAQS for ozone and carbon monoxide by 1987.
The nonattainment SIP must demonstrate "reasonable further progress" toward NAAQS
in the interim; provide for reasonable available control technology on sources in the
area; analyze effects on air quality, welfare, health, society, and economics; and must
also hold a public hearing prior to issuing a permit for a new source. To obtain a
permit, new sources in urban areas must secure from other facilities "emission offsets"
greater than the new source's proposed emissions; in addition, a new source's control
technology must comply with the "lowest achievable emission emission rate" for such a
source.
As a final word about the Clean Air Act, the above discussion has reviewed many
provisions that, directly or indirectly, can address many air quality concerns in
protected areas. Unfortunately, the Act- at least as currently interpreted or
implemented- does not address all such resource protection concerns. For example,
the Act often does not deal effectively with the following concerns:
• The individual and cumulative air quality impacts of sources not subject to PSD
permit requirements, such as "minor" sources, sources located in nonattainment
areas, existing sources, and sources located in foreign countries;
• Regional loadings of air pollutants; and
• Long-range transport of air pollutants.
Despite these deficiencies, informed managers of special and protected areas can press
the current system to its limits in defense of the resources. Managers of biosphere
reserves that are layered with other land management designations, e.g., national park,
national wilderness area, national forest, etc. can couple CAA tools with their other
authorities. For example, units of the National Park System must be administered "to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations" (16 U.S. C. 1). Moreover,
[t]he authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection,
management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the
high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be
exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas
have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically
provided by Congress (Id. la- 1).
Essential to making the existing statutory authority work for the protection of the
resources, however, is the gathering and development of the relevant scientific and
technical information on which the legal system depends.
90
STEPS FOR AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Protection of air quality related values depends on the far-sighted development of
relevant information and knowledge. The manager of the biosphere reserve can gather
much information at his or her level; store, disseminate, and use it, as appropriate; and
connect with other managers and air quality specialists, as necessary, for support and
approaches beyond the local level. In these efforts, the land manager is pursuing the
purposes of the biosphere reserve, i.e., research, monitoring, education, and resource
management, toward the end of enabling human beings to live harmoniously and
productively with the environment.
The land manager can begin by asking six basic questions about the protected resources,
as follows:
1. Which resources, if any, are known to be, or potentially may be, affected by an
ambient pollutant? What are the effects?
The manager can undertake an inventory of the area's air quality related values, all
those resources, values, and purposes of an area dependent in some way on the air
quality. Since the effects of air pollution have not yet been determined for all air
quality related values, the manager can next identify certain known "indicator"
resources, such as pollution-sensitive species, visibility in relatively pristine areas, and
acidity of water resources and/or changes in sensitive aquatic organisms.
As for effects, the manager can learn the nature, extent, intensity, duration, frequency,
and timing of potential or actual effects of particular pollutants. The manager can
characterize the receptor resource, e.g., an endangered or threatened species, a
dominant species, an area namesake species, a species important to visitor enjoyment.
The manager can determine the susceptibility of the species to effects, e.g., heightened
susceptibility from existing disease condition. The manager can ascertain the potential
for synergistic effects, e.g., disproportionate effect from interaction of ozone and
sulfur dioxide.
2. What are the current and/or projected levels of the pollutant in the ambient air?
The manager can estimate these levels through monitoring and modeling. Monitoring is
essential to protection of resources, for both scientific and legal purposes. For
example, if the air quality is relatively pristine, monitoring detects deterioration; if the
air quality is already relatively deteriorated, monitoring identifies dangerous
concentration levels. Managers can monitor, while researchers develop other necessary
knowledge. With respect to modeling, mathematical models can predict or estimate a
source's, or region's, contribution to pollutant levels at a receptor. Improvements in
the accuracy of models will enhance new source review, as well as solutions to regional
and long distance transport of pollutants such as ozone, regional haze, and acid
precipitation. By using monitoring and/or modeling, the manager can learn the
background levels of pollutants, their peak concentrations, the "baseline" level for PSD
purposes, and the frequency, distribution, and duration of given pollutant levels.
91
3. Are the measured or projected pollutant levels high enough to cause effects?
The manager can work with an air quality specialist to determine the effects on the
area's air quality related values at given pollutant levels. The answer develops from
field surveys, literature searches, and research, such as sensitivity determinations and
biomonitoring plots. The manager can support or encourage research by the staff,
technical offices of the organization such as the National Park Service Air Quality
office, universities, or other interested organizations.
4. How will the pollutant affect visitor enjoyment, significant protected resources,
and the ecosystem?
As suggested previously, this question forms the basis of the "adverse impact" test. A
judgment call, this test has been applied by the National Park Service in reviewing the
impact of major new sources proposing to locate near Class I areas. In evaluating
effects on "visitor enjoyment," the test may require identification of the visitor of
concern, i.e., the passing- through visitor, the backpacker, the researcher, etc. In
evaluating effects on "significant protected resources," the test requires a
determination of the purposes, values, and resources for which the area has been
established and managed. The manager bases this determination on a review of the
enabling legislation or order, the legislative history, management documents, and the
like. Finally, in evaluating "ecosystem" effects, the manager can guard against effects
on dominant organisms within the ecosystem, on organisms that bring about important
processes, and on environmental factors. Thus, effects on dominant species, effects on
species that regulate nutrient pools, and effects on species that moderate extremes in
the environment can all impair the integrity of the ecosystem of which they are a part.
Although native rare species do not, by definition, have a major influence on the
structure and functioning of the ecosystem, they are special resources, important for
their contribution to overall biological diversity, and they probably make unknown
contributions to the ecosystem of which they are a part.
5. What is/are the source(s) of the pollutant?
Different factors may govern the manager's decision to address a pollution problem
depending on the source of the pollution. Pollution may come from natural sources,
such as forest fires, volcanoes, geysers, and decomposing vegetation. Pollution may
come from mobile sources, governed by special statutory and regulatory provisions.
Pollution may also come from stationary sources, i.e., a pollution source which is in a
fixed location. Stationary sources may be further characterized as "point" sources,
"fugitive emission" sources, and "area" sources.
6. What can be done to control/mitigate the pollutant's emissions and effects?
This question has many answers, short-term and long term; scientific, legal, and moral;
executive, judicial, and legislative; confrontational and cooperative; appropriate
variously at the area, local, state, federal, or international levels. The following
suggest some of the answers:
• Planning processes. Incorporate air resource management goals, issues, projects,
concerns, and protections in internal organizational planning, and provide similar
input to other agencies and government bodies.
• Research and monitoring. Examples of air quality research include research on
biological effects, visibility, visual values, and predictive modeling. Examples of
92
monitoring include monitoring of visibility, criteria pollutants, and air quality
related values.
• Development and analysis of regulations and legislation. At all levels, managers
can pursue appropriate activities to improve the implementation of already
existing statutes intended to protect air quality related values, and to develop new
authorities toward this end. Examples of this kind of activity include working with
EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards properly protective of health
and welfare, working with the state and local governments to set additional
protective standards, and the like.
• Environmental assessment documents. Managers can become involved at an
early stage in environmental assessments and environmental impact statements for
activities that could affect air quality. Managers can encourage the lead agencies
to consider all potential impacts, including cumulative impacts, secondary growth
impacts, and the like.
• Interpretive activities. Interpretation is an educational process which helps
establish an awareness of the area's air resource for the enjoyment, appreciation,
and edification of the public. Raising public consciousness of the air pollution
problem in protected areas can be the key to action to address the problem.
• Clean Air Act activities. As discussed earlier, the Clean Air Act offers many
opportunities for resource protection.
CONCLUSION
Air pollutants can injure and destroy the very resources and values for which biosphere
reserves, parks, and other special areas have been established and managed. The Clean
Air Act and various management statutes offer many opportunities to try to protect
these resources and values. The manager has an awesome responsibility to protect the
resources and to take full advantage of the available opportunities.
93
GLOSSSARY
Air Quality Related Values (AQRV) - Values possessed by an area that may be affected
by changes in air quality, e.g., visibility, flora, fauna, archeological sites, historical
structures, soils, water resources, visitor enjoyment, etc.
Adverse Impact Test (or Air Quality Related Value Test) - The determinative test under
the Clean Air Act for deciding whether a new major source with the potential to
affect a Class I area may obtain a PSD permit to construct. 42 U.S.C. 7475(d). If
the Federal Land Manager determines, and convinces the State, that the new
source will adversely impact the Class I area's resources or values- even though
the new source's emissions will not contribute to an increment violation — a permit
shall not be issued. Conversely, if the Federal Land Manager certifies that the new
source will not adversely impact the Class I area's resources or values — even
though the new source's emissions will contribute to an increment violation—
the permitting authority may issue a permit.
Baseline - A term of art under the Clean Air Act, "baseline" refers to the date of
submission of the first complete application for a PSD "permit to construct." The
"baseline concentration" means the ambient concentration level of the pollutant in
question which exists in the baseline area on this baseline date. 42 U.S.C. 7479(4).
Class I Area - Among the "clean air" areas of the country, where the air quality is
better than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Class I areas are those
lands given the highest degree of protection from future degradation of air
quality. The Clean Air Act designates as mandatory Class I areas, inter alia,
national parks over 6,000 acres and national wilderness areas over 5,000 acres in
existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
Class II Area - Among the "clean air" areas of the country, where the air quality is
better than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Class II areas are those
lands given a moderate degree of protection from future degradation of air
quality. The Clean Air Act designates as Class II all "clean air" areas of the
country except those areas designated mandatory Class I. 42 U.S.C. 7472(b); see
also, Id. 7474(a). States, or Indian governing bodies as appropriate, may
redesignate Class II areas to the more protective Class I status or, in some
circumstances, to the less protective Class III status. Id. 7474.
Class HI Area - Among the "clean air" areas of the country, where the air quality is
better than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Class III areas are those
lands redesignated by a State or Indian governing body for the least degree of
protection from future degradation of air quality. 42 U.S.C. 7474(a). Significant
increases in pollution may be permitted in a Class III area as long as such pollution
will not cause an exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Id.
7473(b)(3).
Clean Air Act (CAA) - 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642. Based on the Clean Air Act of 1963.
the present CAA is primarily comprised of amendments enacted in 1970, Pub. L.
No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676. and amendments enacted in 1977. Pub. L. No. 95-95, 91
Stat. 685.
Criteria Pollutant - A pollutant for which the Environmental Protection Agency has
established a National Ambient Air Quality Standard. To date, the criteria
pollutants are particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon
monoxide, lead, and ozone.
94
Federal Land Manager (FLM) - Under the Clean Air Act, the FLM is "the Secretary of
the department with authority over . . . [the] lands" in question. 42 U.S.C.
7602(i). For units of the National Park System, the Secretary has delegated his
authority to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Various
officers of the National Park Service exercise this authority in routine matters, but
the Assistant Secretary retains this authority in controversial matters.
Increments - The amounts of additional pollution, beyond already existing baseline
levels, which may be allowed in a particular "clean air" (PSD) area. The size of the
allowable increment varies with whether the area is designated Class I, Class II, or
Class III. 42 U.S.C. 7473.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) - National standards, established by
EPA, which prescribe concentration levels of pollution in the outdoor air which
may not be exceeded. 42 U.S.C. 7408, 7409. "Primary" NAAQS are set at a
level to protect the public health, allowing an adequate margin of safety. Id.
7409. "Secondary" NAAQS are set at a level to protect the public "welfare" from
any known or anticipated adverse effects. Id. The public "welfare" includes
"effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man- made materials, animals, wildlife,
weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and
hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal
comfort and well-being." Id. 7602(h).
Nonattainment Area - Nonattainment areas are the "dirty air" areas of the country,
where the air quality is worse than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Part D of the Clean Air Act contains the requirements applicable to these areas
for improving the air quality in order to meet the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. 42 U.S.C. 7571-7578.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) - 42 U.S.C. 7470-7491. The PSD
requirements, contained in Part C of the Clean Air Act, constitute a planning and
management process for allocation and use of the air resource in the "clean" areas
of the country, where pollution concentrations are below the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
State Implementation Plan (SIP) - A state developed, federally approved plan for
implementing and enforcing the requirements of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C.
7410. With certain exceptions, a state with an approved SIP is responsible for
allocating the air resource within its boundaries.
AIR POLLUTION AND SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS
Boyd Evison1
Abstract. Air pollution reaches Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Parks in large quantities, with effects that are not yet well understood.
A research program has begun, to 1) establish baseline information on
ecosystem structure and processes, 2) monitor incoming pollutants,
and 3) monitor changes over time. Visibility monitoring also has begun.
A highly coordinated effort is underway through which most research is
being done by scientists supported by funds from outside the National
Park Service's budget. Gaps remain in the program; but the information
being gathered will be of incalculable value to management.
INTRODUCTION
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, the largest and most- nearly pristine area
now preserved in the Cascade-Sierra Biogeographical Province, is assaulted daily by the
spillover of air pollution from the San Joaquin Valley- which is an agricultural area of
extraordinary economic and social significance.
The National Park Service recognizes its responsibility to gauge the effects of air
pollution on the Parks' resources, and if appropriate, to mitigate them; but we are
profoundly hampered in doing so, by the lack of baseline information, and by our
inability to fund adequately the collection of such information and data on the kinds,
amounts, and sources of pollutants, and the ecosystem changes that they may cause.
The Parks' staff has therefore concentrated on designing a research program that will
guide collection of the necessary information; providing the best research facilities,
support staff, and ambience that it is able to; and using those qualities, along with the
Parks' enormous natural appeal, to attract the conduct of needed research by scientists
who are able to obtain funding from various sources in the public and private sectors.
These efforts have resulted in a program funded at a level that is equal to about 15
percent of the Parks' operating budget; but significant gaps remain, and additional
funding still is badly needed. Park management is continuing its efforts to gain
understanding of, and support for, the program.
THE RESOURCES
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, managed as a single unit, comprise 344,000
hectares of the southern Sierra Nevada of California. The Parks are buffered on the
north, east, south and northwest by National Forest land, much of which is designated
wilderness. The parks span an elevation gradient from 400 to 4,418 meters, and include
excellent examples of many of California's most representative ecosystems. These
include foothill grassland, chaparral, mixed conifer and subalpine forests, meadows,
* Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, California
95
96
and riparian, alpine and aquatic communities. Many hundreds of lakes grace the rugged
high country, and the streams that lace it unite to form three of the State's major
rivers.
The great majority of the Parks' area is perhaps as well protected from contemporary
human impacts as is any place of comparable area in the 48 contiguous States. They
can serve well as reference points against which to measure the effects of human
activity on similar areas on which comparable data are now beginning to be developed.
Although zones of cooperation have not officially been designated, an array of sites now
being studied in other places in and near the Sierra Nevada and the Cascades serve
informally in that role. In addition, resources in limited areas within the Parks are
manipulated to mitigate the effects of various human activities, and offer excellent
opportunity for study of the effects of such manipulation and of the activities
themselves. The latter include those associated with roads, trails, campgrounds,
concession-operated accommodations, and administrative facilities, which occupy less
than two percent of the Parks' land area.
The Parks are, by National Park Service standards, unusually well endowed with
research staff and facilities. Two permanent research scientists, a permanent
ecologist, and several seasonal technicians are supported by a recently established
(1982) research center in the Parks, consisting of a field laboratory, offices, and
dormitory space. The technicians assist project investigators with routine sampling and
data collection, substantially reducing logistical problems and support costs.
Significant direct support also is provided by a professional Resource Management
Division, which carries out much of the monitoring associated with air pollutants and
impacts. In addition, the Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit (CPSU) at
the University of California's Davis campus provides academic support facilities, and
functions as an administrative clearinghouse for cooperating University scientists. The
Parks' strong support of basic and applied research has helped attract scientists from
across the nation, most of whom work with funds from sources outside the National
Park Service.
THE ISSUE: AIR POLLUTANTS
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks are at the eastern edge of the San Joaquin
Valley, the monetary value of whose agricultural production exceeds that of any but
three nations. The Valley is a 400 kilometer trough running north to the Sacramento
Delta, which in turn drains into San Francisco Bay. At one time, rivers and lakes
augmented by unusally heavy rains made it possible for steamboats to travel from San
Francisco the length of the Valley, to Bakersfield, south of Sequoia- Kings. However,
agricultural manipulation has transformed formerly submerged lands, and the water
that once submerged them, into food and fiber "factories."
Now it is a panoply of airborne pollutants, rather than steamboats, that make their way
down the Valley. Prevailing northerly winds deliver a load of factory and vehicular
emissions from as far as Richmond, in the San Francisco Bay Area, augmented by what
is emitted along highways 1-5 and U.S. 99, and the network of roads and industrial sites
serving Stockton, Modesto, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Visalia, and Bakersfield. Spray
planes, spreaders, and irrigation systems inject assorted agricultural chemicals into the
system, and cultivation and burning add a substantial increment of particles and gases
to the mix.
97
Much of the year Visalia- about 40 miles from the towering Sierra Nevada might as
well be in Kansas; the range is obscured by smog. Views from the Parks into and across
the Valley to the Coast Ranges, reportedly seen in the past with great regularity, now
most often fade quickly into a brownish- gray pall, after a day or so of clarity following
passage of a storm front. Visible pollutants are pressed against the mountains, building
often to depths of a thousand meters, and sometimes deeper, spreading over
4,000- meter passes to the east side of the Sierra. There, beyond the Parks, they are
likely to meet pollutants blown up the Owens Valley from Los Angeles.
The ozone, acid precipitates (wet and dry), and other particles and gases arriving in the
Parks certainly bring changes in their ecosystems. It seems that no place on earth is
exempt from some alteration by modern anthropogens; but this is clearly a serious
concern, in terms of the Service's mandate to protect natural ecosystems' integrity-- a
mandate implicit in the legislation that established the Parks, reinforced by their status
as an International Biosphere Reserve, and compelled by the Clean Air Act, by which
the Parks are to be protected from degradation of air quality.
The appropriate response to such a threat seems obvious: measure the input of
pollutants into the Parks and identify their sources; measure the changes associated
with the pollutants; and take whatever steps are possible to mitigate them or model, as
best we can, what our system would be like without those pollutants. Unfortunately,
the foundation on which such understanding must be built is now very shaky. We lack
basic descriptive information on ecosystems structure and processes in most of the
Parks' natural communities, so it is not possible to judge accurately the effects of the
influx of air pollutants (or of any other anthropogens, now or in the future). It is thus
necessary to operate now on two fronts, building the foundation of ecosystems data
while beginning long- term monitoring of inputs; and then to follow on with
measurement of any changes in ecosystems structure and process as they may relate to
those inputs.
The acquisition of such data requires a much larger investment in research and
monitoring than the National Park Service is now prepared to finance. It therefore has
been necessary to concentrate much effort on building a cooperative relationship with
scientists funded by other federal, state, and private sources. Most of the projects
falling under the auspices of the research program developed by the Parks' scientists
and managers will be carried out either under contract or cooperative agreement. The
Parks' two research scientists are responsible for primary guidance in selection of
subjects, and for coordination of the overall program. This includes assuring that
sample collection and analysis are carried out on schedule and according to established
protocols; facilitating interaction, data exchange and integration between projects; and
assuring application of results to program objectives.
THE RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROGRAM
Objectives and Scope
The primary objectives of the Parks' air pollution research program are to 1) establish
baseline values, 2) monitor trends of anthropogenic pollutants, and 3) determine and
continue to monitor potentially sensitive ecosystem parameters across the broad
elevation gradient offered by the Parks. In addition to information on basic ecosystem
98
structure and process, and inputs of acid precipitation and oxidant air pollution, this
will require measuring the effects of fire, a natural process element now cautiously
being reintroduced after many years of vigorous protection.
In pursuing support for these studies, first priority has been given to the quantitative
measurement of atmospheric concentration and deposition of pollutants, and detection
of symptoms of ozone damage, and estimation of hydrological and chemical balances
for selected watersheds. Second priority has been given to the collection of data
necessary to understand the more complex effects of atmospheric pollutants on the
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of the area. To date, we have been remarkably
successful in attracting substantial support for projects in both priorities. The Parks
are performing their biosphere reserve role well by serving as a site for a major part of
the State of California's acid precipitation/ecosystems research. The California Air
Resources Board has assigned a full-time professional to on-site coordination of the
work it funds. This project has become an exceptionally positive example of
Federal/State cooperation. The data gathered by this and an array of other cooperative
efforts will be of incalculable value for comparing results with those from more heavily
affected areas, as well as providing a baseline for measuring the magnitude and
direction of future changes within the Parks.
Preliminary Hypotheses
While the research program is designed primarily to provide baseline trend monitoring
of atmospheric inputs and ecosystem processes for a remote natural area, it has been
helpful to develop a number of site- specific hypotheses, or general questions to be
addressed. These include the following:
1) Relative susceptibility of different Sierra ecosystems to acid precipitation is a
function of local geology, soil development and chemistry, biota, weather patterns,
and climate.
2) Atmospheric inputs vary as a function of elevation in the Sierra Nevada.
3) In the Sierra Nevada, dry deposition is as significant a source of pollutants as is rain
or snow.
4) Weakly buffered Sierran lakes are highly susceptible to increased acid precipitation.
5) A strong pulse of acidic snowmelt in the spring may place high Sierra lakes under
severe biological stress.
6) Acidic inputs may be reflected in changes in soil chemistry (especially N cycling),
microbiology, and litter decomposition rates.
7) Acid precipitation may affect plant productivity, phenology, and community
composition.
8) Natural fire regimes and the biogeochemical effects they induce mask the effects
of low level acidic inputs on Sierra ecosystems.
9) The effects of ozone may now be more severe than those of acid precipitation; and
the two will be difficult to sort out.
To a varying degree, these hypotheses have been addressed in the development of the
study design for the research program.
99
STUDY DESIGN
Acid Precipitation
While acidic precipitation has been documented as occurring in the Parks, no impacts
directly attributable to it are known. The Park scientific staff is cooperating with the
California Air Resources Board, the U.S. Geological Survey, University of California
scientists, and others to document baseline ecosystem parameters of the type known to
be sensitive to acid precipitation. This project is a long-term ecosystem study designed
to provide baseline data on such topics as aquatic chemistry and biology, soil mapping
and chemistry, snow melt processes and plant succession and productivity, which are
among the parameters most sensitive to acid precipitation.
To reduce logistical problems and variability in results, research is concentrated along
an elevation gradient in the Middle and Marble Forks of the Kaweah River drainage. In
general, the strategy is to emphasize baseline/cataloging types of information in the
early years of the study. It is anticipated that following several years of intensive
baseline data collection, many measurements will be needed only on an intermittent
basis.
Three primary study sites have been selected for intensive study. Spanning much of the
Parks' elevation gradient, the sites include low elevation chaparral, middle elevation
mixed conifer forest and high elevation subalpine communities. Each site is located
away from developed areas and possible sources of local contamination. Each site
consists of a headwater drainage basin bordered by relatively distinct topographic
divides. In each basin, detailed terrestrial, aquatic, and continuous meteorological
measurements are integrated and directed towards understanding biogeochemical and
hydrological cycles (including input and output measurements), as well as basic
structural and functional characteristics of the aquatic and terrestrial systems.
Quantification of the amount and chemistry of input from rain, snow, dry deposition
and nitrogen fixation is focused in or near these areas. Emphasis is placed on
integrating input/output budgets with associated process-level studies, in order to
quantify internal sources and sinks of acid and other pollutants. Because of the
importance of fire in biogeochemical cycling and pH fluctuations, replicate study areas
will be experimentally burned in conjunction with the low and middle elevation study
areas, and pre- and post-burn sampling conducted.
The primary study sites were selected as representative ecosystems on the basis of
available information on the soils and vegetation of the Park. The primary study sites
are as follows:
1. Elk Creek, 750 m elevation. A dry wash granitic drainage in which water flows only
during moderately heavy storm events. The drainage to be studied is about 5
hectares in size and is dominated by evergreen chaparral shrubs.
2. Log Meadow, 2,070 m elevation. A perennial stream drainage about 38 hectares in
size. The Log Meadow site is typical giant sequoia mixed conifer forest. Other
common tree species include white fir, red fir, and sugar pine.
3. Emerald Lake, 2,800 m elevation. This granitic drainage, about 125 hectares in size,
is a typical high subalpine basin. Emerald Lake itself is 2.6 hectares in size and is
fed primarily by snow melt from the surrounding basin. A single, well defined
channel drains the lake. Vegetation is sparse with much of the basin being exposed
rock. Scattered clumps of lodgepole pine, western white pine, and foxtail pine also
occur in the drainage. Several shrubs are locally common.
100
Ozone
Although the primary study sites were established with acid precipitation in mind,
ozone studies are being related to them. The effects of ozone are thought to be most
significant in the middle elevation areas of the Parks. Ozone monitors are operated
cooperatively with the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at four
places in the Parks. Field plots have been established to monitor ozone symptoms.
Damage ranging from undetectable in remote areas to severe on trees in drainages
exposed to Valley pollution has been found. These plots, some of which were
established jointly with U.S. Forest Service personnel, will continue to be monitored.
The severity of ozone damage on yellow pine in some areas prompted additional studies
of the effects of ozone on key plant species. Research is underway to detect possible
ozone damage to mature black oak and to sequoia seedlings (both in fumigation
chambers and in the field). Preliminary findings indicate substantial damage to black
oaks. Findings regarding impacts on sequoia seedlings are as yet inconclusive, but
suggest strongly the possibility that damage is occurring.
Visibility
Visibility monitoring was started in 1983. Automatic cameras at Moro Rock and Lower
Kaweah (Giant Forest) record visibility down the Kaweah Canyon three times a day.
One camera was placed on the Sierra Crest looking toward the Owens Valley during the
summer of 1983. While the photos have yet to be quantitatively evaluated, it is readily
apparent that visibility is severely impaired by pollutants at many locations. Visibility
impairment is primarily a function of increased concentrations of fine particulates and
photochemical aerosols during long dry periods.
STATE OF THE PROJECT
The catalyst for the greatly increased attention being given research into the effects of
air pollution on the Parks was their selection, in 1981, as one of the initial three units
of the National Park System to be studied under the auspices of the National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP). From the outset, emphasis was on the
collection of baseline data necessary to detect subtle, but potentially very significant,
changes in soil, vegetation and aquatic environments. NAPAP funding was directed to
the integrated watershed study. This part of the overall project will provide the
beginning of a Park- wide Geo-based Resources Information System (GBIS). This
framework for the collection, storage, retrieval and analysis of data on biotic and
abiotic resources will provide information that can be crucial in making park manage-
ment decisions.
Cooperative efforts supporting aspects of the Parks' acid precipitation/ecosystem study
as of October 1984 include the following:
National Park Service Interagency Acid Precipitation Funds - These funds, which are to
continue through 1991, have been used primarily to establish and describe the three
primary study sites, to monitor precipitation and stream chemistry, gauge stream flow
at Log and Elk Creeks, establish and maintain meteorological stations at each site,
establish a vegetation monitoring program, establish a water chemistry laboratory, and
provide logistical assistance to contract and cooperative studies. Contract studies also
101
supported with these funds include soil survey and mapping of all sites, soil chemistry of
selected soil types at all sites, preliminary studies on aquatic chemistry and biology at
all sites, and establishment of a phenology, water relations and productivity monitoring
program for key plant species at all sites.
Other National Park Service (NPS) Programs - The NPS Denver air quality office is
funding projects on ozone effects on important tree species (includes field observations,
fumigation and tree ring studies) and on lichens that might be susceptible to air
pollution damage in the lower elevations of the Park.
Additional studies that are providing information of value to the Park program have
been funded by the NPS Denver Service Center and the National Park Service
Interdisciplinary Science Team Program, including a geologic survey of Giant
Forest/ Lodgepole area; an overview of surficial geology and geomorphology of the
Crescent Creek basin (preliminary survey); an overview of geology of Emerald Lake
basin in relation to acid precipitation (preliminary study); seismic refraction studies of
the thickness of alluvium in the Wolverton ground- water basin and beneath Crescent
Meadow; and stream- forest ecosystem interactions in the mixed conifer forest zone.
US Geological Survey - The USGS has made a long-term commitment to monitor
stream hydrology and water chemistry (including aluminum and other metals) at
Emerald Lake. The survey is supporting investigations into stream hydrology (including
installation, calibration and maintenance of monitoring equipment), and stream
chemistry.
Man and the Biosphere Program/US Forest Service - This is a jointly funded project to
study dry deposition of N and S compounds at Elk Creek.
Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) - EPRI has recently contracted for a study
of surficial geology and mineralogy of the Emerald Lake basin.
University of California - Special UC research funds for acid precipitation related
topics have been acquired to supplement soil mapping and chemistry projects already
begun, and for seed money for studies on effects of aluminum on mycorrhizae.
California Air Resources Board - The Air Resources Board has recently selected
Emerald Lake as the site for a major 5-year integrated watershed study on the effects
of acid precipitation on the Sierra Nevada. The ARB is funding several comprehensive
studies, including aquatic systems (stream and lake chemistry, plankton, diatoms and
invertebrates) at Emerald Lake, snow hydrology and chemistry at Emerald Lake,
vegetation studies (succession, mycorrhizae, lichens, productivity etc.) at Emerald Lake
and Log Meadow, tree ring analyses, soil processes at Emerald Lake, and a study of lake
sediment buffering.
NASA - As part of its Global Biology Program, NASA- Ames (Moffett Field, California)
is funding three studies related to the integrated ecosystem project. These are
designed to help predict basic ecosystem parameters from remote sensing data. They
are examining forest biomass and productivity in the mixed conifer zone, and litter and
soil nitrogen processes at Log Meadow and Elk Creek; and producing a topographic
drainage model of Emerald Lake basin.
An additional study of N2O emission from the soil is being planned.
102
Southern California Edison Co. (SCE) - SCE is funding event precipitation chemistry
collection sites near Elk Creek and Log Meadow, and a survey of water chemistry of
High Sierra lakes.
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) - NADP has an acid rain monitoring
station (wet and dry buckets) that is part of the federal monitoring network located
near Log Meadow.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee - Oak Ridge is carrying out a study of the
use of Be7 as a tracer of dry deposition in the mixed conifer zone.
CLOSING THE GAPS
Although the high level of interest and support by federal, state, and private entities
has been gratifying and productive, several significant program elements are not yet
being attended to. These include: 1) nutrient cycling and soil microbiology, to
complete the nitrogen model initiated by NASA; 2) experimental laboratory modeling of
long-term acid precipitation effects on soils, to help anticipate the effects of present
or projected precipitation chemistry regimes; 3) fish and amphibian population
dynamics; 4) terrestrial arthropod baseline inventory, to be done intensively in several
representative vegetation types and then monitored periodically; 5) completion of
standard soil maps of the Parks; 6) reconstruction of biological history to provide a
range of normal variation against which changes may be judged; and 7) examination of
the effects of ozone on species other than man, yellow pines, black oaks, and sequoias.
It is unlikely that any manager ever will have all of the information that should be
brought to bear in resolving resource problems. Decisions constantly must be made
with far less data than should be at hand; and conversely, inaction is often excused by
the lack of data. Because the ecosystem approach has been taken in developing Sequoia
and Kings Canyon's air pollution research program, the severity of those quandaries of
management is being substantially reduced- not only as it relates to dealing with air
pollution, but with the whole array of contemporary and future assaults on the Parks'
ecosystems* integrity.
AIR POLLUTION WORKSHOP SUMMARY
David G. Silsbee and Christopher Eagar
Uplands Field Research Laboratory
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Participants in the workshop unanimously felt that the main emphasis of an air quality
program for a biosphere reserve should be on research and monitoring, with education
and interpretation as secondary goals. Therefore, the workshop focused mainly on the
nature of the air quality research and monitoring for biosphere reserves. A few
thoughts on interpretive activities were also presented. Futhermore, although the
discussion was intended to refer to biosphere reserves in general, the prevalence of U.S.
National Park Service personnel in the workshop and the initial orientation toward
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks resulted in a discussion that centered
primarily on the application of the biosphere reserve concept to U.S. national parks.
Research and monitoring activities appropriate for biosphere reserves are, for the most
part, also appropriate for national parks. Biosphere reserve designation primarily adds
a regional and global perspective. Air quality research and monitoring for national
parks is geared almost exclusively toward the protection of park resources. In a
biosphere reserve park, a broader program is called for.
The object of a biosphere reserve is not only to protect the resources within the
reserve, but also to learn more about the biosphere as a whole. To this end, the
biosphere reserve serves as both an area representative of a larger biotic province and
an area against which to compare and contrast less pristine areas. Comparisons with
other reserves with both similar and contrasting ecosystems are also an important
function of the biosphere reserve program.
For these reasons, air quality research and monitoring in biosphere reserve parks should
include a substantial outward- looking element. Monitoring should be geared not only
toward providing the necessary data for park management, but also toward providing a
baseline against which non- reserve areas or areas in other parts of the world can be
compared. In many cases, this will make little difference in a program. In other cases,
it could mean the monitoring of parameters that are not considered important from the
park's standpoint in order to provide a baseline for comparison with other areas where
they are important.
Similarly, research programs should be geared not only to providing information for
park management, but also toward use of the relatively pristine reserve area for
research that can be applicable to outside areas. Biosphere reserves can also be useful
in providing an "early warning system" for anthropogenic effects that might be more
difficult to detect in areas affected by the confounding influences of multiple use or
development.
One of the most important ways to implement this difference in perspective is to
develop cooperative programs involving other areas. These programs could involve
companion biosphere reserves, nearby non-reserve areas, or other reserves in other
parts of the world. Formally defined relationships are likely to be stronger and more
durable than ties based only on informal cooperation.
103
104
F"or this kind of inter- area cooperation to be meaningful, it must be possible to compare
the available data. Although this is important for national parks as well, biosphere
reserve research/monitoring programs must be even more concerned with making their
data compatible with that collected in other areas. Methods and data formats must be
as standardized as possible. A high quality database must be maintained with an eye
toward long-term storage, and the data must be accessible to outside researchers. One
of the best ways to ensure this compatibility is to use established monitoring networks,
such as the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) in the U.S. and the
Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) of the United Nations. Periodic
meetings of biosphere reserve managers and scientists for standardization of methods,
exchange of ideas, and planning of cooperative programs would also be valuable.
Up to this point, it may seem that biosphere reserve designation is simply an additional
burden which, if it does anything at all, will drain resources from park- oriented
programs to those with less obvious benefits. To a degree, this is true. But biosphere
reserve designation can also help park programs. The biosphere reserve label can
improve chances for the funding of programs beneficial from both park and biosphere
reserve viewpoints. It may also have considerable rhetorical value, giving extra weight
to park protection in air quality permit proceedings, design of regulations, and other
political and legal machinations of the air quality regulatory process.
The cooperative programs and broadened perspective developed under a biosphere
reserve program can also directly benefit park management. Manipulative research not
appropriate for a national park can be carried out more easily in nearby areas because
of ties developed under the biosphere reserve concept. Air pollution-related damage to
less pristine areas may also give added weight to park managers' claims that their areas
are in danger. A graphic example of this is the widespread ozone damage to trees in
the San Bernardino Mountains and the effect it has had on the perceptions of potential
damage in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. While the biosphere reserve
status is not essential to these comparisons, it does give added impetus to developing
the ties and keeping aware of what is going on outside park boundaries.
Additional specific suggestions given for the kinds of research and monitoring that
should be undertaken in a biosphere reserve include:
1 . A heavy emphasis should be placed on baseline data collection and monitoring. This
is essential not only for inter-area comparisons, detection of trends, and legal
proceedings, but also for interpretation of more detailed effects research.
2. Past research and monitoring activities should be reviewed for any potentially useful
data sets. A good historic record would be invaluable in interpreting current work and
current pollutant levels and pollutant effects.
3. Experimental effects research is also essential. Such research should initially
concentrate on the most clear-cut cases of air pollution damage. These may not be the
most important effects, but they are likely to be the most effective in generating
public support.
4. Both ecosystem-oriented and organism-oriented research are important. Because
the biosphere reserve program stresses the importance of preserving genetic diversity,
all species should be included, not just the community dominants.
105
5. Trajectory modeling aimed at clarifying source-receptor analysis is an important
element. Research and monitoring programs should not lose track of the legal
framework within which they must operate. They must be tailored to provide the kinds
of data needed by regulatory programs, and the quality of that data must be good
enough to stand up in court and in permit proceedings.
6. Finally, a biosphere reserve monitoring program should include parameters such as
carbon dioxide and its relationship to the global climate, which may be important from
the global perspective but not the local.
Although the workshop gave little attention to interpretive and educational programs, it
was generally agreed that such programs were valuable. Information on air pollution
should be included in interpretive displays. Traveling displays can be used in areas
outside the park to further increase public awareness. Public participation in
decision-making should also be encouraged whenever practical.
Such programs should not be seen only as a service provided by the biosphere reserve
park, perhaps at the expense of other services. Interpretive programs are also effective
in generating public support for park or reserve programs and public concern about the
effects that air pollution may be having both within and outside park boundaries.
Finally, the workshop addressed several institutional constraints that limit the ability of
parks to implement biosphere reserve-oriented activities. Foremost among these is the
lack of a program identity for the "biosphere reserve program." Without personnel or
funding specifically allocated to biosphere reserve activities, any such activities
undertaken by a park come directly out of the budget of some other, established
program. Given current limitations on park budgets, it is unrealistic to expect any
substantial reallocation of funds from more traditional programs.
Along the same lines, the need for a central agency-level policy with regard to
biosphere reserves was strongly felt. Although it is possible to reorient some programs
to reflect a biosphere reserve perspective, any changes involving substantial
reallocation of funds are unlikely to be made at the individual park level. Some
commitment must be made by the NPS leadership. The objectives of park management
must formally include biosphere reserve objectives before the kind of commitment the
program calls for is likely to develop. Hopefully this workshop has been a step in that
direction.
EXTRACTION OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES IN BIOSPHERE RESERVES:
AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF MAN AND NATURE
Thcmas W. Lucke^
Abstract. The MAB program offers conservationists and the extraction
industry an opportunity to meet the twin goals of resource preservation
and extraction. MAB areas, where mining and preservation coexist, can
serve as experiment stations or laboratories in which processes and
procedures can be developed to integrate conservation and development.
These concepts could then be exported so that extraction activities, no
matter where they occurred, would be accomplished in an environmentally
sound manner. The goal would be to bring about a human landscape on
which extraction, undertaken to meet human needs, would be controlled
and would not result in the destruction of ecological diversity.
PROBLEM
The world of today needs to preserve gene pools. It needs to preserve ecological
diversity. It needs to protect its endangered species such as the grizzly bear, the
black-footed ferret and the peregrine falcon. It must have the foresight to protect
valuable natural habitat from becoming islands in an expanding sea of development.
That on the one hand. On the other, the world and its ever- expanding population needs
iron to build its machines and fuels (oil, gas, coal and uranium) to drive those machines.
It needs strategic minerals to allow us to conquer outer space and to feed our industry.
Both needs are real, both are important. One policy option speaks to resource
preservation; the other speaks to the extraction of nonrenewable resources. Can we
have both extraction and preservation? Or, must we decide to have either one or the
other?
In the past, unfortunately, confrontation was the order of the day. Preservationists
were pitted against the extraction industry. Developers became locked in battle with
conservationists. It was a win-or-lose situation. Victory was on the side of whoever
could muster the most money and the most influential supporters. In some cases, the
extraction industry won at the expense of resource preservation. In other cases,
preservationists won at the expense of resources badly required to meet the energy and
strategic mineral needs of the world and its peoples. In short, decisions were made on
the basis of "might made right."
This type of confrontational decision- making was tolerable in days when we lived in a
world of plenty, a world where we could both "lock up" some resources and "extract"
other resources. But, those days are rapidly coming to an end. Our population is
increasing, and our needs for oil, gas and minerals are increasing. When the last barrel
of oil is below a national park, when the last pound of cobalt is within a national
preserve, or when the last ounce of molybdenum is to be found in an archeological
preserve, the confrontational politics of the past will not work. Those nonrenewable
resources will be extracted to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked and to care for the
poor. The conclusion is foregone! Those resources will be extracted to meet human
needs. What legislators will say "PRESERVE" when their constituents are hungry?
1 Chief, Water Resources Branch, National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado
106
107
What Presidents or Prime Ministers will say "CONSERVE" when their people are cold?
What voters will favor "NO DEVELOPMENT" when they have no jobs and their children
are denied the necessities of 20th century life?
But, to say that it is inevitable that the extraction of nonrenewable resources will occur
is not to say that we must totally destroy our natural world in doing so. Rather, we
must develop a system to allow for the extraction of certain nonrenewable resources
while still preserving key natural resources. We must create an atmosphere in which
conservationists and members of the extraction industry can work in harmony to ensure
that both extraction and preservation goals are met. We must develop a system that
allows both to become prudent stewards. And, I feel it is in this arena that the Man and
the Biosphere Program can make a great contribution. Unlike core preservation areas,
MAB areas can provide the opportunity for the conservation community and the
extraction industry to work hand- in-hand and to serve as a role model for the rest of
the world.
STATUTES AND LEGISLATION
But, before I speak to that point, let me give a brief overview of what type of
extraction activities have occurred throughout the history of the park system in the
United States. Many observers of the National Park Service are not aware of the full
extent of mineral development within units of the system. It is not a topic that is dear
to the hearts of people who concentrate mainly on the preservation and conservation of
resources. Yet, the activities are real (Hamson 1982).
For example, five national recreation areas were established with specific provisions in
their enabling legislation that permit the leasing of Federally- owned minerals. The five
areas are Lake Mead, Glen Canyon, Ross Lake, Lake Chelan and Whiskeytown- Shasta-
Trinity. As with other public lands, the leases within these recreation areas are issued
by the Bureau of Land Management under various sections of Title 43, Code of Federal
Regulations.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Congress established a number of park units in which it
explicitly authorized the extraction of oil and natural gas by the subsurface owners. In
these areas, only the surface estate was acquired by the National Park Service; the
owners of the subsurface rights were allowed to retain ownership and are allowed to
extract the oil and gas deposits. Examples of such areas are Big Cypress National
Preserve, Fort Union National Monument, Padre Island National Seashore, Big Thicket
National Preserve and Jean Lafitte National Historic Park. The regulations governing
the extraction of non- Federally owned oil and gas deposits can be found in 36 CFR 9,
Subpart B.
Upon establishment as part of the National Park System, individual units are generally
closed to mineral entry under the General Mining Law of 1872 (Novak 1982). However,
Congress expressly permitted continued mineral entry in six areas: Death Valley
National Monument, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Crater Lake National
Park, Mount McKinley National Park (now Denali National Park and Preserve),
Coronado National Memorial and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. In 1975,
mineral entry received national attention when a series of mining claims were staked on
some of the most popular scenic lands within Death Valley National Monument. As a
result, Congress passed the Mining in the Parks Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-429). While
the Act closed all of the six units to further mineral entry, it authorized the Secretary
of the Interior to promulgate regulations governing the extraction of minerals by the
individuals and companies who held valid existing rights (36 CFR 9, Subpart A).
108
The above are a few examples- not an exhaustive list- of the various types of
extraction activities permitted throughout the National Park System. You will note
that three of the NPS areas mentioned, Denali National Park and Preserve, Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument and Big Thicket National Preserve, are already MAB areas,
and the U.S. Department of State has recently requested NPS endorsement of Death
Valley National Monument to become part of a Desert Biosphere Reserve.
This brief overview shows that the U.S. Congress, in the past several decades, has come
to the realization that the United States cannot survive and continue to prosper without
oil, gas, minerals and other extractable resources. Yet, Congress saw the real need to
preserve key natural resources. So, Congress devised a scheme whereby the staff of the
National Park Service would be charged with the triple responsibility of preserving key
resources, providing for appropriate visitor enjoyment, and allowing for oil, gas and
mineral extraction to continue in order to meet the energy and critical mineral needs of
the country. In a real sense, the Congress of the United States, for whatever reasons,
chose to combine altruism and materialism with the hope of capturing the true public
interest.
Permit me to say that 1 am not advocating the opening of National Park Service areas
to mineral development. Clearly, that would be inappropriate. I am not advocating the
opening of any park area to extraction. The world needs areas of total preservation.
What I am saying is that the U.S. Congress mandated both preservation and extraction
in some units of the system. In these areas, and in MAB areas around the world where
the twin activities have been legitimized, we should make a concerted effort to ensure
that both mandates are met and that the techniques developed there should serve as a
model for environmentally sound mineral extraction projects. Let me explain what I
mean.
ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION
The MAB program and its staff, in my opinion, should develop a specific program to
expand on and apply these twin goals of idealism and materialism. The purpose of the
program would be to develop the knowledge, technologies, institutional and practical
skills required to enable people and governments in every part of the world to integrate
the extraction of nonrenewable resources and the preservation of key natural resources
into one system in order to work in harmony and to meet both goals (Batisse 1982).
While the thought of allowing for extraction of nonrenewable resources while preserving
natural features in the same place may be relatively new, the concept of productive
coexistence between conservation and development has begun to receive serious
attention. The IUCN's landmark publication in 1980 outlining a world conservation
strategy focused world attention on the concept, giving it both credibility and
direction. This publication marked a turning point in global conservation policy, away
from the traditional focus on protection of significant natural areas and toward a
broader approach in which the marriage of conservation and development is seen as an
essential prerequisite of human progress (Gregg 1983).
And, because it is a new concept, traditional park managers and particularly park
scientists will have to be prepared to deal with a whole set of new problems, problems
that do not fall into the traditional category of preserving our sacred ungulates or
counting peregrine falcon nesting sites. Disposal of drilling muds, possible subsidence,
acid drainage from mines, diminution of air and water quality, and impacts of drilling
rig noises on nesting waterfowl are examples of the types of technical issues that need
to be addressed. These are not the types of studies that the average park scientist has
been trained to handle or is temperamentally inclined to pursue.
109
However, some significant on- the- ground steps have been taken with some positive
results. For example, oil and gas exploration in Big Cypress National Preserve had a
one- year moratorium imposed in 1983 by the Governor of Florida, and it was coupled
with a Task Force to recommend interagency mitigating actions. Today, exploration
and extraction requires the review and monitoring by the Big Cypress Swamp Advisory
Committee, Florida Department of Natural Resources (well and drilling permits),
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (water monitoring and wetlands
protection), and the National Park Service (surface landowner). Other agencies more
peripherally involved include the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, South
Florida Water Management District, and county environmental offices. Permitting
takes a minimum of six months, but, when that permitting process has been completed,
extraction activities are controlled and well thought out. In short, it is a rational
approach to land use planning.
Core preservation areas are, of course, needed. But MAB areas where both extraction
and preservation coexist are also needed. These latter types of areas could serve as
experiment stations or laboratories to find ways to integrate conservation and
development within each of the diverse ecological regions of the world. Such MAB
areas could serve as the catalyst for bringing conservation fields to develop techniques
and build skills that could then be applied at the local, regional, national and
international levels. The extraction capacity of different ecosystems could be
established, innovative drilling/mining tools could be devised, environmentally sensitive
transportation modes could be developed, non-destructive survey/ exploration devices
could be instituted, and our methods of restoration and reclamation could be refined.
These and other products and processes developed by a concentrated effort within the
MAB areas could then be exported so that extraction activities, no matter where
conducted, would be accomplished in an environmentally sound manner. These MAB
areas could set the standards and become the cornerstone for conservation wherever in
the world human needs and demands dictate that resource extraction occur. In
addition, local, State and Federal governments could use these techniques and standards
as their benchmark in developing new laws and regulations. If this did occur, the people
of the world could look forward to a time when they could see natural resources
preserved on the landscape where they spend most of their lives and not see it only
when they visited a park or protected area. The conservation of natural diversity would
become a part of their everyday life and would not become a rare curiosity to be
enjoyed only during a visit to a protected area. Such a program would help attain the
World Conservation Strategy:
"Conservation is the management of human use of the biosphere
so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present
generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and
aspirations of future generations. Thus conservation is positive,
embracing preservation, maintenance, sustainable utilization,
restoration, and enhancement of the natural environment."
Such an international program is necessary. And, it is imperative that such a program
commence soon. If it does not, there is a real danger that the conservation community
and the extraction industry, like the infamous Kilkenny cats of Ireland, will keep
clawing, scratching and biting at each other until there is nothing left of them but their
tails (Dasmann 1972).
Instead of conflict, managers of such MAB areas could work closely with various
existing institutions to evaluate existing techniques, technologies and laws. As a
nation, the United States is becoming more and more sophisticated in its bio- or
110
ecosystems monitoring and manipulation, but it has a long way to go if extraction and
preservation are to live in harmony. And, because our present system is not perfect,
various entities are striving to improve methodologies and laws. As an example, the
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, is presently undertaking a study of
Technologies for Surface Mine Reclamation in the western United States. Other
entities involved in studies to ensure that extraction is accomplished in an
environmentally sensitive manner include the American Petroleum Institute, the
American Mining Congress and the research offices of various mining companies. The
MAB program, as proposed here, could work closely with such groups to ensure that
natural resource concerns are integrally woven into the fabric of such reports and
studies and that extraction is carried out under strict guidelines that would allow the
land to revert to its natural state.
In this day and age, conservationists cannot afford to be optimists. Yet, to be a
pessimist is to be a defeatist. To me, that is not a viable option. Let us work to
develop a program under which can occur mineral extraction to meet the needs of the
world community and preservation activities to ensure the continued ecological
diversity for viable natural habitats. This would be a logical extension of the MAB
mission; this would be a response to the needs of the late twentieth century in the same
way the setting aside or preserving of core areas was a response to societies' needs
earlier in the twentieth century. And, such a program would lead to a rational approach
to resolving the conflicts between preservation and development; it would lead to a
policy of orderly and careful development rather than to a crash program when the
needs are immediate and environmental cautions are left unmet and preservation
questions unanswered (Riggs 1984).
LITERATURE CITED
Batisse, M. 1982. The Biosphere Reserve: A Tool for Environmental Conservation and
Management. Environmental Conservation 9(2): 101-111.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 9:
Subpart A: Mining and Mining Claims
Subpart B: Non- Federal Oil and Gas Rights
Dasmann, R. F. 1972. Planet in Peril? Man and the Biosphere Today.
Gregg, W. P., Jr. 1983. MAB and Its Biosphere Reserves Project. The George Wright
Forum: 17-31.
Hamson, D. M., and C. M. Wood. 1982. Minerals Management. Trends 19: 28-32.
Novak, E. 1982. Mining and the National Park System. Journal of Energy Law and
Policy 2: 165-179.
Public Law 94-429, 1976. Mining Within the National Park System.
Riggs, C. 1984. Access to Public Lands: A National Necessity. Exxon U.S.A., 8-11.
DEVELOPMENT OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES
AND GLACIER NATIONAL PARK
Robert C. Haraden1
Abstract. Glacier National Park, Montana, has been identified as
the most threatened national park in the National Park System.
About half of the threats are external and many have the potential
for considerable long-term resource alteration. This paper examines
case studies of two of the more significant issues and seeks a course
of action through the Man and the Biosphere Program.
INTRODUCTION
Nearly 75 years after its establishment, Glacier National Park, Montana USA, faces
numerous internal and external threats to its integrity as a natural ecosystem. Some of
these threats are internal and are presently producing adverse impacts for which the
park is providing mitigation measures, i.e., visitor impacts, fire management, exotic
plants, construction and maintenance projects. Others are external threats of far-
reaching potential magnitude.
The Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program may play a leading role in providing
mitigation to the potential external threats resulting from proposed development and
extraction of nonrenewable resources adjacent to Glacier National Park.
This paper will focus on two issues. (1) Oil and gas exploration and production on public
lands in the U.S. adjacent to the park has some interesting and challenging
relationships. (2) A proposed open strip coal mine operation in British Columbia has
unique international implications.
Stratagies developed to protect the integrity of Glacier National Park through the Man
and the Biosphere Program will have application elsewhere.
THE RESOURCES
Glacier National Park has existed since 1910 as a natural ecosystem that must be
considered one of America's most valuable nonrenewable resources. An area of one
million plus acres- slightly larger than the State of Rhode Island- it is surrounded by
several million acres of essentially public land. On the east it is bordered by the
Blackfeet Indian Reservation and on the south and west by two national forests. Small
tracts of private, state and county lands exist nearby. The northern boundary against
British Columbia borders Crown land, while the boundary against Alberta joins Waterton
Lakes National Park, linked to Glacier to form the world's first International Peace
Park. The complex geologic landscape of Glacier is displayed in a spectacular
combination of precipitous peaks, glacier- carved valleys and mountain lakes, and
glaciers. This ever-changing land, complimented by a diverse biotic community,
represents a major scientific resource, as well as an aesthetic recreational attraction of
national significance.
1 Superintendent, Glacier National Park, West Glacier, Montana
111
112
Today, Glacier remains remarkably intact ecologically. Only two mammals no longer
exist the bison and the caribou. The park contains a vast wild area and is playing a
leading role in the preservation of the threatened grizzly bear and the restoration of
the endangered bald eagle. The park also provides a safe haven for the northern gray
wolf that now frequents remote, seldom- used areas of the park.
Waterton Lakes National Park was established in 1895 and is one of only two biosphere
reserve areas presently set aside in Canada. It is bordered by Crown land, the Blood
Indian Reservation and private ranch land. The meeting place of mountain and prairie
landscapes, the area was set aside to preserve its scenic beauty and its many natural
and archeological features and to allow for the natural evolution of park ecosystems,
while providing facilities to enhance the visitor's enjoyment of the park.
The U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) Coram Experimental Forest Biosphere Reserve and
Research Natural Area (5 miles south of Glacier National Park) forms the third link in
this chain of biosphere reserves. The area is an outdoor laboratory for silvicultural
research and provides the basic information needed to manage western larch and
Douglas fir forests on comparable sites in the Northern Rocky Mountains. The
Research Natural Area is used only for monitoring while the remainder is available for
manipulative research. The area is subject to oil and gas exploration and development
as a permitted activity.
Waterton, Glacier and the USFS Coram Experimental Forest have each been designated
as Biosphere Reserves. Recently, the Regional Forester and the Superintendents of the
two parks have agreed the three areas should be redesignated as the Rocky Mountain
International Biosphere Reserve.
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION
The forces that created the Lewis Overthrust provided the spectacular landscape that
resulted in the creation of Glacier National Park. These forces also created the
potential for major oil and gas reserves that may help in retaining the good life we
know in America today. In addition, exploration and production on tribal land can
enhance the well-being of our native Americans, and on State lands it can provide
income to the public schools of Montana.
Currently, major exploratory wells (representing a $4 million- plus investment) are .
proposed on the Lewis and Clark National Forest, four miles from the park boundary,
and on the Coal Creek State Forest, 1-1/2 miles from the Flathead Wild and Scenic
River on the western boundary of Glacier. Both are under the mandates applicable to
their management. Both have proposed to move ahead on the basis of Environmental
Assessments. The U.S. Forest Service and the Montana Department of State have
provided complete briefings to the park staff, but wish to avoid full Environmental
Impact Statements because of the considerable cost, time delay, and unknowns and the
small chance of an exploratory well becoming a producing well. The park has pleaded
the case that all of the potential impacts should be addressed up front. To allow the
permittee to expend over four million dollars in exploration and then discover the
environmental cost to develop is too high, would be irresponsible. If four million dollars
is to be spent on a risky venture, then funds should be found for an adequate assessment.
The potential impacts to the park are scenic degradation, noise pollution, air and water
pollution, increased access to remote areas, and human intrusion on grizzly bear and
wolf habitat. The secondary impacts (in the form of more people and more
development of critical migration corridors in the buffer zone of influence adjacent to
113
one of the world's biosphere reserves) would probably be more severe than the impacts
from the extraction process facilities.
Our philosophy is not to be a barrier to development, but rather to make our concerns
known and work with our neighbors to mitigate negative impacts and create sound
development that will have minimal adverse influence on the park's natural ecosystem.
Working with- rather than against — always pays larger dividends to all concerned.
The park was instrumental in the establishment of the "North Fork Coordinating
Committee," composed of all area land and game management agencies. This
Committee provides a forum for the discussion of oil and gas exploration and
development and other similar issues along the western boundary of the park. The
Committee has served as a communication link to develop understanding, share planning
efforts, and hopefully lead the way toward some form of regional planning. Tribal and
Bureau of Indian Affairs spokesmen have been less open about their plans along the
eastern front.
The park's science and resource management staff works directly and closely with other
agency personnel involved. These and other threats- both internal and external — are
also woven into the park's interpretive programs.
CABIN CREEK COAL MINE
Sage Creek, Ltd., a subsidiary of Britain's Rio Algam, Ltd., has proposed an open pit
coal mine development in the southeast corner of British Columbia, six miles from the
northwest corner of Glacier National Park. Extensive deposits of low sulphur coal are
destined for Far East markets for production of heat and electricity. The predicted
active life of the mine is from 20 to 40 years, producing 2.2 million tons per year from
the 4,000-acre site. It would be ironic, indeed, if coal harvested here and shipped to
the Far East came back to Glacier in the form of acid rain because of the lack of
environmental controls at the source of use. This observation is only to suggest the
complexity of some of the potential impacts that face biosphere reserve areas. The
potential local impacts are high because of the site's location in the Flathead River
Basin system, which flows south across the border along Glacier's western boundary into
Flathead Lake- -the largest natural freshwater lake west of the Mississippi River.
Adverse impact on aquatic resources would have severe economic repercussions as well
as potential irreparable ecological damages. Class I air quality designation for Glacier
provides protection on the U.S. side of the border, but this classification is not
international. Other potential impacts of boundary encroachment from a major facility
this close to the park are major road developments for transportation of the final
product, air quality degradation, temporary townsite and subsequent day-use facilities
for several hundred workers, settling pond overflows and flooding, ground water
degradation and nearby homesite growth. Benefits would accrue to the economy of
British Columbia residents — most of whom live in the opposite end of the province — and
who remind us that we enjoy the benefits of our resource development and they seek
the same good life. International negotiations on this issue have been intertwined with
diversion projects originating in the U.S. and flowing into Canada- -the Poplar River
Project between Montana and Saskatchewan and the High Ross Dam at North Cascades
National Park- and the effects in Canada of acid rain generated in the U.S.
In spite of these complex issues, the park has been able to meet with Provincial and
Federal Canadian officials to discuss our concerns. In this respect, the U. S. State
Department, Montana Governor Schwinden, and Montana Senator Baucus have provided
114
invaluable assistance and leadership since the potential impacts reach beyond the park
and come under the International Boundary Treaty of 1909, which says that neither
country will degrade the waters of the other country- but who sets the degradation
standards is still unclear.
The issue has resulted in the establishment of the Flathead Basin Commission by the
Montana State Legislature. The Superintendent of Glacier serves as a member of this
Commission. The Commission's purpose is to protect the natural resources and
environment of the Flathead Basin by coordinating development of an annual monitoring
plan and developing strategies among agencies to encourage economic development
without compromising the environment.
Discussions with Provincial and Canadian officials under the State Department
leadership have relied on the International Boundary Treaty and the International Joint
Commission (IJC) because of its legal status as a treaty between the two countries.
The U.S. State Department has been reluctant to lean on the biosphere reserve
designation of Glacier as a lever because it lacks any legal status. Impending proposed
designation of Glacier as a World Heritage Site may carry more weight because of its
treaty provisions.
The encouraging aspect in this case is the open communications that have been
developed with Canadian officials, their willingness to share their data and discuss
objectives at the border, and their concurrence in a joint reference to the IJC to
request a full study and recommendations from that two- nation commission.
EXISTING PROGRAMS
The broad program elements under development in Glacier include the following:
1 . Broaden existing area of management cooperation to include regional terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems.
2. Establish an advisory committee to assist park management in program content
and direction.
3. Refine present monitoring programs to assure that a1.l elements of the park
environment are adequately treated.
4. Conduct a genetic evaluation of species in need of special attention.
5. Tie a portion of the park's research budget to biosphere reserve activities.
6. Provide information/interpretive programs to develop public understanding and
support.
7. Accelerate implementation of Regional Landsat Geographic Information System.
8. Initiate comparative study work using elk winter range as a prototype model.
9. Allow use of park's gene pool for enhancement of endangered or threatened
species- i.e., west slope cutthroat trout and grizzly bear.
115
10. Through the recently formed Glacier Institute- an educational alliance with the
Flathead Valley Community College- provide educational classes on the Man and
the Biosphere Program.
1 1 . Establish a local M AB trust fund and grant program for student research on M AB-
related projects.
Current examples of research and monitoring activities within Glacier National Park
Biosphere Reserve include:
• Possible grizzly bear augmentation plan for Cabinet Mountains (use of Glacier's
gene pool for grizzly bear recovery.
• Development of Regional Geographic Information System.*
• Air quality monitoring, including acid rain and a bio- indicator network. (One of
three Canadian acid rain monitoring stations in the U.S. is in Glacier.)*
• Baseline study of heavy metals and other pollutants.
• Water quality monitoring parkwide and on North Fork at Canadian border.*
• Mount St. Helens nutrient subsidy studies.
• Baseline wildfire behavior and ecology studies.
(Projects marked with an asterisk [*] relate to the two issues discussed in this paper.)
Glacier has not identified line- item budget allocations or personnel to MAB- related
projects. Rather, employees from several disciplines have become involved, including
management, interpretation, resource management, planning and research.
In 1982 Waterton Lakes National Park established a Biosphere Reserve Management
Committee that includes local neighbor ranchers. The active group has provided
direction for the program and has received modest financial help through Canada/MAB
and Parks Canada ($2,000 - $3,000/year). They have more recently established a
technical committee with representation from several federal and provincial agencies,
including a member from Glacier's research staff.
The five-year objectives of the Waterton Lakes Biosphere Reserve are as follows:
1 . Work with the Natural History Association to establish a biosphere reserve
publications series.
2. Establish demonstration research projects for public viewing.
3. Establish a regular series of seminars on biosphere reserve issues.
4. Set up an education and research program for secondary, college, and university
students.
5. Establish a long-term environmental monitoring program in cooperation with
Glacier Biosphere Reserve and the Coram Forest and Range Experimental
Station.
116
The Coram Experimental Forest is engaged in the following studies:
1. To establish desired mixtures of natural or artificial regeneration rapidly after
harvest cuttings.
2. To determine the effect of various stand cultures on the development of these
forests.
3. To reduce insect and disease problems through silvicultural practices.
4. To determine the biological and economic effects of wood utilization practices.
5. To enhance watershed, esthetic, and wildlife habitat values through silvicultural
practices.
6. To establish permanent plots to study terrestrial vegetation in research natural
areas.
Designation of the Rocky Mountain International Biosphere Reserve will give added
emphasis to closer coordination and cooperation between the parks and the
experimental forest.
CONCLUSION
The program is not well understood by the public, and consequently there has been some
tendency to use the biosphere reserve status as a hammer to impede resource
development. We have been slow to develop well-defined biosphere reserve action
plans that address the objective of MAB, since the program is new and evolving and
managers are still trying to determine how to incorporate it in their existing mandates.
The guidelines are only now being formulated about what we can do in designated
reserves to meet the objectives of the program.
We are in the midst of a learning and experimenting phase of a long-term program that
should materially benefit the preservation of Glacier National Park's natural ecosystem
while providing for the wise use of adjacent lands.
The issue at hand is, how can the MAB biosphere reserve designation be used to develop
measures that will be supportive of other agency mandates to develop natural resources
for the benefit of the people, while at the same time protecting the integrity of the
natural ecosystem of the park- also for the "benefit and enjoyment of the people"?
DEVELOPMENT OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Mark Alston
Uplands Field Research Laboratory
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Unknown to most people, twenty percent of National Park Service areas are open to
some form of mineral resource extraction. Extraction rights may be in the form of
federally- owned mineral rights, claims resulting from the 1872 mining act, or via
nonf ederally- owned oil and gas rights. Several biosphere reserves are affected by such
internal extractions. Mineral extractions outside perserve boundaries affect even more
national parks and biosphere reserves. Extraction operations may adversely affect
biosphere reserves by acidic or toxic water drainage, air pollution, noise pollution,
and/or increased human activity around the perserve boundary. Activities such as
roadbuilding, logging, and home building may disturb animal migrations or movement or
breeding behavior within the preserve, even when these disturbances occur outside the
preserve. To address this problem, the workshop considered the case history presented
by the Glacier National Park Biosphere Reserve, an area affected by mineral
extractions outside its boundary.
Glacier National Park and Waterton Lakes National Park in Canada are contiguous and
in close conjuction to Coram Experimental Forest. All are biosphere reserve areas and
have asked to be collectively redesignated as the Rocky Mountain Biosphere Reserve.
There are three current extraction proposals within six miles of this biosphere reserve.
These are oil extraction on U.S. Forest Service land, oil extraction on Montana State
Forest lands, and coal extraction amounting to two million tons yearly for 20-40 years
on British Columbia Crown Lands. Since the extractions will take place outside the
actual preserve and since there are strong economic incentives to develop these mineral
resources, the issue becomes finding ways that the Biosphere Reserve Program can be
used in a positive way to ensure that development proceeds without compromising the
integrity of the reserve.
The discussion during the workshop emphasized that there is a general lack of
understanding of the biosphere reserve concept and a tendency to confuse preservation
of natural resources with nondevelopment of the area. Such a misunderstanding often
leads to a lack of cooperation between industry and biosphere reserve officials. One
way to reduce this misunderstanding may be to change some of the misleading or harsh
terminology used by biosphere reserve officials. The term "buffer zone" implies a
hard-line locking up of resources, while "area of cooperation" may actually lead to
more cooperation between industry and the biosphere reserve. Ultimately, education is
the key to reducing misunderstanding. Education of biosphere reserve concepts should
be a priority of the MAB program. Often, even the MAB staff does not understand
these concepts. We need to start educating our own personnel and expand this
education to include visitors, the general public, local government, and industry. The
educational program should focus on the mutual benefits of the MAB program and on
ways that cooperation can be accomplished.
Associated with this lack of understanding is a nearsightedness on the part of MAB
officials. There is a general failure to look beyond the boundaries of the reserve and
detect problems such as nearby mining before they occur. It is much easier to prevent
environmental damage than it is to clean up afterward. A system of monitoring
117
118
programs outside the reserve boundary would be an excellent first step in reducing this
shortcoming. Establishment of water and air quality standards by using the reserve to
provide baseline data is another way to prevent problems. Monitoring programs and
establishment of standards are more likely to succeed if industry is allowed to provide
input into their establishment. In addition, MAB officials should be directly involved in
local and state government bodies that decide on local environmental issues. Such local
planning and zoning committees are good places to air reserve concerns about nearby
development and to educate the public about potential impacts.
Similarly, there is a lack of public involvement in the decision -making process within
the biosphere reserve program. A concerted effort should be made to involve the public
by holding public meetings on issues that affect the biosphere reserve and surrounding
areas. This would not only present an aura of MAB cooperation, but would also educate
the public to MAB concerns and MAB to the public's concerns. Public meetings of this
nature would be excellent opportunities to compare the benefits of proposed
development with the benefits of the natural resource. For example, tourism may be
much more profitable for the surrounding area, especially in the long term, than a
short-lived mining operation. Such meetings can become the first step toward a
cooperative effort by the entire community to preserve the resource.
At the same time, however, while we are encouraging public support, we should also be
encouraging support by industry. Industry, especially mining, has a strong economic
incentive to develop the mineral resource. If we can provide strong incentives to
protect the biological resource during the development of the mineral resource, we are
much more likely to succeed than we would if we try to completely deny resource
development. One method of encouraging the cooperation of industry is to work with
them to develop the least destructive techniques for mineral extraction and to
demonstrate how such cooperation can lead to positive public support for an often
maligned industry. Another method is to use some type of incentive program to allow
the development of one area in exchange for total protection of another particularly
critical or sensitive habitat. Federal or State tax credits are another means of
providing incentives for industrial cooperation in preserving natural resources.
In conclusion, managers of biosphere reserves need to provide leadership in using the
MAB concept as a tool in the management of the reserve and the surrounding
community. Such management should be based on the cooperation of all involved
parties and should emphasize the benefits to all. Through education and cooperation,
we can develop the needed natural resources and still preserve the biological resources
represented in MAB areas.
BIOSPHERE RESERVES OF THE MAN AND BIOSPHERE
PROGRAM IN SUPPORT OF SUSTAINED YIELD
FOREST MANAGEMENT
Stanley L. Krugman*
Abstract. Traditional methods of information and data gathering
to support modern forest management are no longer adequate. The
modern forest manager must be highly skilled in a number of technical
areas; he must also be sensitive to the impact of his management
decisions on the society and environment of which he is a part.
The Biosphere Reserve Program offers a unique opportunity to focus
diverse disciplines and skills on given natural resource management
problems. This new research tool enables the resource manager to
identify the consequences of his management on both the natural
resource as well as on human activity and the local environment.
Additional keywords: Biosphere reserves, MAB, forest management,
forest germ plasm management, environmental management.
INTRODUCTION
Forest managers must be highly skilled in the various technical aspects of forestry.
They must also be aware of the impact of their decisions on the society and
environment of which they are a part. Today's forester does not manage but one
resource; he must, on a daily basis, come to grips with multiple natural resource
management problems and decisions of both short and long-term duration. He must
also be aware of those environmental factors over which he has no direct control, as
they influence the direction his resource management may take. Clearly, current
forest management is highly complex and getting more so each year.
Traditional methods of information gathering to support modern forestry are only
partially successful and effective. New problems are surfacing faster than traditional
information systems can respond. The scope of many forestry issues is no longer
narrow and restricted to a local forest or region. They are often national or
international in ramification. For example, air pollution as a result of man's activity
has become an all too common trademark of an industrial society. Although the source
of the pollution may be far removed from the natural resource for which we are
responsible for managing, the influence of air pollution on the resource must be
understood. The acid rain problem of northern Europe and the eastern United States
has all too often a serious negative impact on the productivity of virtually all forest
trees and resources. The acid rain problem is no respector of national borders, and will
be with us for some time to come. Yet, in developing current management plans, we
must consider possible losses in forest productivity from causes which we seem unable
to directly control.
^Director, Timber Management and Research, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
119
120
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION
ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
The current methods of responding to environmental problems are often inadequate.
Frequently, we lack the funding and expertise to seriously address the issues. What is
needed are new approaches to problem- solving and environmental
information- gathering systems which provide for both national as well as international
cooperation as needed. We need improved mechanisms for information- sharing and
research strategies which enable us to bring together in an effective format many
diverse disciplines to focus on a given resource management problem. The new
research approach must enable us to identify the consequences of resource management
decisions on human activity as well as the environment. We need a system that can
quickly and effectively provide the latest information to the land manager.
One approach that is being used involves the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program.
The main objective of the MAB Program is to develop the basis within the natural and
social sciences for the rational use and conservation of the biosphere and for the
improvement of the relationship between man and the environment (U.S. National
Committee, MAB 1977). In principle, MAB provides a formal interdisciplinary and
intergovernmental mechanism for bringing together and coordinating diffuse national
and international resource, conservation, and training activities.
ROLE OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES IN RESEARCH
AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES
The United States Biosphere Reserve network has been developed to include
representative sites from a wide variety of ecological conditions, al 1 of which are
influenced to some degree by the activities of man. There are research and monitoring
opportunities which can be addressed at individual sites and by the network as a whole.
Several specific levels of research and monitoring activities that are being addressed on
the biosphere reserves include: (1) long-term baseline studies of environmental and
biological features (e.g., flora, fauna) which are essential as bases for management of
the area and for other research projects; (2) research designed to assist in determining
management policies for the reserve; (3) experimental and manipulative studies (outside
the core reserve area), particularly of the ecological effects of human activities,
including forest management; (4) environmental monitoring; and (5) study sites for
various MAB research projects. The relative emphasis on different research and
monitoring activities obviously varies with the nature of the biosphere reserve and the
data needed. In view of the broad research and monitoring activities envisioned for the
Biosphere Reserve Program, it thus should be easy and logical to integrate the concerns
of forest management in monitoring those activities that have individual importance to
management of the forest resources and of the environment (Franklin 1977; Gilbert
1976; U.S. National Committee, MAB 1977).
As an initial step in designing a monitoring system, it is important to assess the nature
of all existing environmental research on the biosphere reserves. The United States is
inventorying climatological and physical-chemical parameters, species composition and
making biomass measurements, and conducting fauna censuses at its established
biosphere reserves. This knowledge of existing monitoring projects at each reserve is
121
useful in providing a much- needed understanding of the current U.S. sites and will
supply the foundations for the orderly initiation of second generation activities, such as
new research and management projects.
ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
OF INTENSIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT
The proposed extensive coverage of the Biosphere Reserve network (at least one
reserve per major ecosystem type) provides an ideal framework for the coordinated
accumulation and synthesis of monitoring data from a wide array of forest management
practices, and to evaluate their impacts on forest resources. Much environmental
monitoring data are already being collected in association with ongoing research
activities on the experimental forests designed to evaluate and develop improved
systems of thinning, cutting, harvesting, logging, transporting, processing, etc. of forest
products, but the focus on these monitoring efforts is often point-specific.
Furthermore, the methodology for collecting such information often varies widely from
one study area to another and over time. Thus, current attempts at standardization of
monitoring methodology in the United States is essential to the widespread use of
environmental data for multidisciplinary analysis by the international scientific
community, as well as by other biosphere reserves in the United States.
Forest management often involves many complex integrated and non-integrated
paractices that potentially may produce environmental disturbances which are felt
on-site or off-site, and may persist only temporarily or for centuries. Some of the
most apparent environmental disturbances have been associated with the thinning,
harvesting, and clearing of mature forests to maintain sustained timber production and
reproduction. Often accompanying these practices is the use of heavy mechanized
equipment and a wide assortment of chemicals, such as fertilizers, insecticides and
herbicides, which still have unknown effects of uncertain duration on the ecosystem in
particular and on the environment in general.
The benefits and/or impacts of treatments are often measured on a wide range of
ecosystem parameters, including hydrologic response, timber and forage yields, soil
erosion and sediment production, water quality, scenic beauty, and the dynamics of
insect, bird, small animal and big game production. Less subtle changes may result in
the forest environment by alteration of species succession, reductions in soil
productivity, or even by changes in the climate. These less subtle changes in the long
run have more far-reaching effects on man's living environment than the more
immediate, apparent changes.
In view of the increasing demand and impacts on the forest resources for various forest
products and benefits, it is necessary to monitor these resources more effectively to
avert potentially adverse environmental changes and overexploitation. Information
obtained in monitoring can be used to understand more fully the structure and function
of the forest ecosystems and their role in biospheric processes. It will be necessary to
identify and sample those biotic and abiotic elements which should be monitored to
reflect conditions and trends in each ecosystem type. The designation of baseline and
impact sites is of the highest priority, even though the technology for complete
monitoring of all parameters is not yet developed. Any substantial delay in initiating a
122
monitoring program, however, can result in lost opportunities to arrest the
deterioration of forest ecosystems and the environment. The ultimate objective of
these monitoring activities, of course, is to provide a rational framework for research
and management decisions that will maintain the productivity of forest ecosystems and
thus result in a satisfactory relationship between man and the biosphere.
CONSERVATION OF FOREST GERM PLASM
Forests represent a substantial genetic resource of considerable diversity and richness.
But, this unique resource is not limitless and is being subjected to numerous pressures.
The utilization of forest resources and the conversion of forest land to agriculture and
urbanization are increasing. To foresters who are interested in the maintenance as well
as the long-term genetic improvement of the forest crop, biosphere reserves offer both
a new opportunity in advancing the science of forest tree improvement and a much
needed, built-in safeguard for maintaining the genetic diversity of forest trees, which
are subjected to intensive forest management. Intensified forest management directly
affects the germ plasm resource by removing desirable genotypes, and indirectly by
alteration of habitat which may be critical for their continued survival. Furthermore,
in some areas, the native forests are being removed often to be replaced by exotics or
non-local reforestation stock. This mixing of often unrelated gene pools during the
reforestation of managed areas further erodes our ability to recover stable and well
adapted parental lines (Krugman 1984, Oldfield 1984, Krugman and Stewart 1982).
It is apparent that if forestry is to avoid the difficulties of general agriculture (i.e., the
loss of the original genetic base), strategies must be developed to maintain a reliable
and varied genetic reservoir for future improvement, to provide standards for progress
in improvement, and to ensure and perpetuate selected large or small populations for
future mass seed production. There needs to be a real concern for maintaining
ancestral lines, as well as a broad genetic base for future selection and breeding
programs. Maintaining an adequate diversity of genes in a population permits new
combinations that can result in individuals that are better adapted to specific
environmental situations. Through breeding, new combinations that fit specific
criteria, such as disease resistance, rapid growth and drought tolerance, can be
produced.
Currently, a number of strategies are being applied in a serious effort to maintain and
protect forest gene resources. Among the more common methods are: seeds, pollen,
and tissue culture storage, seed stands and plantations, seed orchards and arborea
plantings, and special gene pool reserves (forest genetic reserves). The importance of
each of these special management areas in protecting the germ plasm pool for
important forest tree species is readily recognized by most forest managers (Krugman
1984).
The management of forest genetic reserves could be easily integrated with the
management of biosphere reserves. These forest genetic reserves represent special
areas of natural forest ecosystems, in which both static and dynamic management can
be applied. To be effective as a genetic reserve, a biosphere reserve must include
forest ecosystems that are representative of forest gene pools commonly found in areas
where consumptive forestry is practiced and will be practiced, and where other
pressures on the forest ecosystem may seriously modify this genetic composition. It
also should be possible within the reserve to manage and manipulate given forest
ecosystems (Krugman 1984).
123
The gene pool of a natural forest population is in adaptive and dynamic balance with a
given environment and can only be maintained through successive generations within
the environmental context in which it evolved. And, since the patterns of inherent
variation of forest trees reflect the patterns of environmental variations, it is essential
that as many patterns of environmental variations are included in a Genetic Reserve
System as possible. Thus, their size should reflect the extent of the biological and
environmental variation encountered. Most often, the Genetic Reserves must
encompass extensive forested areas. Lest we forget, the area should be sufficiently
large to minimize the hazard of foreign pollen contamination. Included should be those
stands that are highly unique and exceptional in growth and form, as well as the typical
representative stands of the areas. In addition, the sensitive and often unique transition
zones of the various species should also be included. Distinct forest tree populations
threatened with destruction should be a part of the Genetic Reserve.
Many of the current attempts at gene pool conservation are static systems. They are
directed at arresting the present rate of evolution (i.e., permit fire control). Similarly,
all too often under undisturbed forest conditions, shade- tolerant species are at a
distinct disadvantage and can be eliminated. Yet many of these same intolerant species
are a major source of the current and future supply of wood and fiber. It should be
possible, by proper management ( i.e., fire, logging, planting), to maintain repeatedly a
segment of a Genetic Reserve in a halted successional sequence (Maini, Yeatman and
Teich 1975; Yeatman 1972).
I noted earlier there is a serious problem of recovering and maintaining proven forest
tree seed sources. By permitting mass seed collections, the genealogical pedigree of a
seed source can be guaranteed, which in this day of declining intact gene pools is rather
important to modern forestry. In essence, selected portions of a Genetic Reserve would
serve as a tested, reliable, and varied genetic reservoir for perpetuating selected
populations for forestry and related uses. In fact, certain portions of the Genetic
Reserve should be preserved intact after the initial screening has taken place.
These recommendations for possible forestry uses of the biosphere reserves are not in
conflict with the general philosophy of the system. To the contrary, the Biosphere
Reserve effort is strengthened if the system can meet these forestry challenges in gene
pool management.
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM
The organizational mechanism is available under MAB-8 for an international effort of
information-sharing. Already, planning teams representing the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
biosphere reserve programs have developed action plans and concrete proposals. To
date, the main areas of mutual cooperation have been directed to (1) "monitoring and
research aimed at understanding the structure and functions of ecosystems and their
components," (2) "environmental consequences of various land management practices,"
and (3) ensuring the effectiveness of biological reserves in maintaining biotic diversity
and gene pools by considering size, habitat heterogeneticy and external influences
(Franklin 1977). Mexico and the U.S. have also developed a cooperative monitoring and
research program. Here, joint planning and research teams have developed appropriate
ecological monitoring systems and experimental studies for the Michilia Biosphere
Reserve in Mexico and the Beaver Creek Watershed Biosphere Reserve in the U.S. By
developing the program together from the beginning, it will be possible to share
124
methodology and data. We are looking forward to the development of improved forest
and resource management systems from these joint studies. This pooling of
international resources will enable the participants to conduct programs and share data
that would not otherwise be possible. Such mutual cooperation should also reduce costs.
The MAB-8 program is not rigid in structure. The program is being directed to meet
both national and regional needs. I hope that the regional forestry community would
become a more active participant in the program, and thus bring their expertise to bear
on problems of mutual interest.
Furthermore, I suggest that the U.S. forestry community must become better
acquainted with MAB- 8 activities in their region. As foresters, we have a good deal to
offer the MAB program, but we have even more to gain.
LITERATURE CITED
Franklin, Jerry F. 1977. The biosphere reserve program in the United States. Science
195: 262-267.
Gilbert, Vernon C. 1976. Biosphere reserves and national parks. Parks, vol. 1 (2), 3 pp.
Krugman, Stanley L. 1984. Policies, strategies and means for genetic conservation in
forestry. In C.W. Yeatman et al. (eds.), Plant genetic resources — a conservation
imperative, p. 71-78. Colorado: Westview Press, Inc.
Krugman, Stanley L. and Ronald E. Stewart. 1982. Biosphere reserves and the
conservation of forest genetic resources. In E.F. Bruenig (ed.)f Transactions of the
third international MAB-IUFRO workshop on ecosystems research, p. 35-43. Bonn,
German National MAB Committee.
Maini, J. S., C. W. Yeatman and A. H. Teich. 1975. In situ and ex situ conservation of
gene resources of Pinus banksiana and Picea glauca. FAO "Pilot Study on
Methodology of Conservation of Forest Genetic Resources," FOMISC 75-8. pp.
27-40.
Oldfield, Margery L. 1984. The value of conserving genetic resources. U.S. Dept. of
the Interior, National Park Service. 360 pp.
U.S. National Committee for Man and the Biosphere. 1977. Handbook for the program
of man and the biosphere in the United States. 16 pp.
Yeatman, C. W. 1972. Gene pool conservation for applied breeding and seed
production. Proc. IUFRO Genetics-SABRAO Joint Symposia, Tokyo, pp. B-8 (V),
l-B-8 (V). 6.
125
THE PARADOX OF REPEATING ERROR: YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK
FROM 1872 TO BIOSPHERE RESERVE AND BEYOND
Robert D. Barbee1- and John D. Varley2
Abstract. Most of the renewable and nonrenewable resource problems
that Yellowstone National Park faces today trace back to its creation
over 100 years ago. When set aside in 1872, protection of geologic
wonders was paramount. Forests and wildlife, two of the most important
aspects of the park today, were recognized by Congress in an almost
off-hand way. The boundaries they set failed to encompass a complete
ecological unit. Later boundary changes attempted to remedy this, but
it was too little, too late. When the park was designated a Biosphere
Reserve a century later, it was again set aside for its geological wonders,
which repeated and reaffirmed the earlier Congressional oversight. While
the first designation did not consider the ecological integrity of the area,
the second failed to consider that the greater Yellowstone region is likely
the largest, essentially intact wild ecosystem remaining in the temperate
zone of the earth. As a result of the development of the West, the greater
Yellowstone area has become an ecological island, one which is managed
by over two dozen separate political and administrative entities.
If the natural condition of this massive ecosystem is to survive in the
future, an innovative new strategy for management must be devised.
Supporters of the Biosphere Reserve concept seek to test and prove the
concept of a model biosphere reserve as a practical management tool
for the next generation. The designation of the greater Yellowstone
ecosystem as a model international biosphere reserve may be the most
efficient and politically acceptable way of preserving this area.
Yellowstone National Park was set aside as an International Biosphere Reserve in 1974
amid fanfare and considerable international attention. Today, some ten years later, a
question might be asked as to what, if anything, the managers of the park are doing
differently than they would be doing if Yellowstone was still not "just" a national park.
The answer, beyond Yellowstone's presence on prestigious lists and an impressive
commemorative bronze plaque, is probably nothing, or at least very little. But why?
Why would such an innovative positive concept, one which virtually all rational-thinking
conservationists could embrace and rally around, be so ineffective in practice?
There are a number of answers, most of which are explored in depth by the authors of
this proceedings. A pragmatic answer- one that ends as a potential solution — is
offered here. Using Yellowstone as an example, a perspective with very real aspects
emerges that has application to many of the designated biosphere reserves.
The Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB) selected Yellowstone National Park and
recognized it for its geologic wonders. In doing so, MAB made the same error that
Congress contributed to a century earlier. They failed to consider that the greater
Yellowstone region was and remains the largest, essentially intact, wild ecosystem
remaining in the temperate zone of the earth. Even if this were not true, the
Superintendent1 and Research Administrator2, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming
126
ecosystem is surely the only area within a nation prosperous enough to afford to prevent
mass exploitation of such an extraordinarily valuable resource.
It is not our intent to demean either the park's superb geologic features, or the
decisions of Congress, or MAB. What is important to consider is that Yellowstone's
boundaries do not encompass a complete ecological unit, nor do they adequately protect
the area's unique geothermal fields.
Despite the existence of the greatest display of wildlife in the contiguous 48 states,
wildlife is one of those special resources that suffers from a lack of ecosystem
integrity. While Congress at one point extended and modified the boundaries of
Yellowstone Park, created additional park lands, and established national forests, in
many respects it was too little, too late. The tremendous growth and development of
the intermountain west has severed key connections between the Yellowstone
ecosystem and the remaining Rocky Mountains. The greater Yellowstone region has
become an ecological island. Development has and continues to encroach on those
misplaced boundaries, with steady and cumulative results. Located in an area of
northwestern Wyoming, southwestern Montana, and eastern Idaho, the greater
Yellowstone ecosystem includes two national parks; a national parkway; five national
forests answering to three U.S. Forest Service regions; two wildlife refuges; numerous
parcels of state, corporate and private lands; and multiple town, city and county
jurisdictions (Fig. 1). Resource decision- making is understandably often disjointed and
does not look first to the care and maintenance of the ecosystem; the threats to its ,
integrity are real. A recent publication by a group supporting the idea of treating the
greater Yellowstone area as an ecosystem listed 88 threats to the viability of the
ecosystem (Greater Yellowstone Coalition 1984).
THE IDEAL YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM
A line can be drawn around the Yellowstone ecosystem which defines a unit that is both
a geologic protectorate and a logical biogeographical province. This unit transcends
political and jurisdictional boundaries (Fig. 2).
Because of limitations in our knowledge, however, the precise boundaries of this
ecosystem must remain vague. What is clear, however, is that instead of the 2.2 million
acres that make up Yellowstone National Park, the Yellowstone ecosystem is an area
that may encompass over 6 million acres of wild and semi- wild lands.
Topographically, the area is comprised of nine major mountain ranges, with the vast
volcanic Yellowstone plateau at the heart. Three of our nation's major river systems
headwater within the unit and have helped shape and feed an amalgam of plant
communities from each of the major biomes found in western North America.
The combination of a diverse plant world, varied and rugged terrain, assorted climatic
effects, and the remote, often hostile nature of the location has created and even
helped protect the ecosystem's varied fauna. The more well-known species found in
abundance within the ecosystem are not unique to this area, though some, like the
grizzly bear and trumpeter swan, are rare outside of the ecosystem. Other species,
such as the elk and the bison, once reduced to meager populations, exist today in robust
numbers.
But the concept of the ideal ecosystem must fall back on the original and foremost
unique feature of the area. Yellowstone's geysers, hot springs, and fumeroles- the
127
GRAYS LAKE
NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUSE
FIGURE 1. MAP OF THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE
REGION SHOWING THE MOST PROMINENT
POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS.
128
GRAYS LAKE
NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
FIGURE 2. AN APPROXIMATION OF
THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM
129
c
<-->
£~ci
*
s
J<*Jf
J
#*&
EXPANDED CORE
BUFFER ZONE
MANIPULATIVE ZONE
FIGURE 3. THE MODEL YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM
BIOSPHERE RESERVE.
130
greatest collection of geothermal features in the world today- illustrate the ecosystem
concept best. There is mounting evidence that the aquifer feeding Yellowstone's
geothermal features has its origins outside the park. This, combined with the potential
exploitation of the known geothermal resource areas adjacent to Yellowstone, shows
why the recognition of this ecosystem is so important.
A POTENTIAL SOLUTION
Resource managers within the ecosystem do communicate with each other and progress
on that front is being made. One only needs to look at the interagency teams seeking to
aid the plight of the grizzly bear, trumpeter swan, and the Jackson Hole elk herd to see
hopeful signs.
Yet, if the ecological integrity of this unique area is to survive into the next century,
an innovative new strategy for coordination and integrated resource management must
be devised.
In this proceedings, Eidsvik thoroughly explores the past failings and the future of the
Biosphere Reserve Program. He and other supporters of the concept suggest that we
need to test and prove the idea of a model biosphere reserve as a practical management
tool for the next generation. The model reserve would include a core natural zone, a
buffer zone, and a zone of manipulation or experimentation. This concept seeks to test
humanity's ability to live in harmony with its environment.
The idea of integrated management is an exciting one; one which might- have the
potential to work under the right circumstances, in the right place, and with the
whole- hearted support of the political entities.
The greater Yellowstone ecosystem may be an ideal unit to test the model biosphere
reserve. The unfragmented, oval shape of the ecosystem is, in itself, a persuasive
beginning point (Fig. 3). Within it, the present Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks and John D. Rockefeller Parkway become the expanded core natural zone. The
established and proposed wilderness areas in national forests, the Island Park
Geothermal Resource Area, plus seasonal wildlife ranges become the buffer zone, and
multiple- use national forest lands plus corporate and private lands become the
manipulative or experimentation areas.
The most obvious advantage of this approach, beyond the fact that we have finally
recognized the ecosystem as an ecosystem, is that it would probably be palatable to all
of the special interests and jurisdictions. The recognition that no lands would
necessarily change political or administrative jurisdiction is a decided advantage.
The managers of this nation's national parks, including Yellowstone, can no longer
afford to stand by in what Eidsvik terms "splendid isolation." There is an absolute need
for a mechanism to foster cooperation and integration with surrounding land managers.
Improved research and monitoring efforts and land and people management are the
obvious rewards. But the largest one of all would be a reasonable expectation that
these ecosystems would survive into the next century.
LITERATURE CITED
Greater Yellowstone Coalition. 1984. Threats to Greater Yellowstone. Mimeo. 94 p.
USE OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES- WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Peter S. White
Uplands Field Research Laboratory
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
The following summary was developed from the Renewable Resources Workshop led by
R. Barbee and J. Franklin. This summary is divided into four sections: Concepts,
Applications, Subgroup Reports, and Summary Recommendations. The Applications
section makes special reference to Yellowstone National Park Biosphere Reserve, which
was used in the workshop for examples of particular issues and applications. Readers
should review the companion paper on Yellowstone National Park to place the following
discussion in perspective. Four subgroups were organized: Reseach/Monitoring,
Education/Training, Public Involvement, and Resource Management. These Subgroups
met separately and then reported back to the full group. About 50 people attended the
workshop and contributed to the views expressed here.
Concepts
Since U.S. national parks are legally protected from most forms of resource use (fishing
being a frequent and notable exception), initial discussion centered on the following
question:
How does use of renewable resources relate to the management of biosphere
reserves in general and national park biosphere reserves in particular?
We concluded that this issue represents a key component of the Biosphere Reserve
Program- for the U.S. national park biosphere reserves as well as other areas. Five
general reasons were discussed for the importance of this issue:
1. Core conservation areas harbor unique examples of undisturbed ecosystems.
Such ecosystems are the best places to observe complex ecological
relationships, the knowledge of which contributes to better management on
lands where resources are used. Such ecosystems may be the best "control"
systems for comparison with managed lands. Such ecosystems may essentially
be early warning systems on environmental degradation, such as that caused by
pollutant deposition (see elsewhere in this proceedings).
2. Core conservation areas are not islands. U.S. national parks are surrounded by
lands where resources are used- -such external use often affects resources
within the core conservation area. Similarly, management in parks can affect
or be perceived as affecting renewable resources beyond park boundaries.
Further, the relationship of core conservation areas to their regional settings
should not be passive- -the core conservation areas have a special responsibility
in a regional context. Some biosphere reserves have been set up with an
explicit regional concept in mind. A larger area (e.g., a biotic province) is
designated within which subareas with different land uses (core conservation
areas, experimental areas, resource extraction areas, zones of cooperation) are
recognized.
131
132
3. Biosphere reserves play a key role in education, training, and research these
activities can relate specifically to resource use even when the resources are
not used within the national park or core conservation area. Key
training/education issues are: ecosystem integrity, sustainable resource use,
improved resource utilization, and regionally appropriate management schemes.
4. Not every U.S. biosphere reserve is a national park- other kinds of areas include
experimental forests and rangelands where resource extraction is permitted and
where a major focus is research on the sustained and wise use of resources. U.S.
national parks are "core conservation areas," but other land use designations are
encompassed within the Biosphere Reserve umbrella (see elsewhere in this
proceedings).
5. Even in U.S. national park biosphere reserves, some resources are or can be
treated as renewable resources: fishing is permitted in many parks, aesthetics
(e.g., visibility and recreation) are usable and potentially impacted by people,
and genetic diversity represents an essential resource for disease resistance
traits, superior strains, and new species for use.
The following discussion summary enlarges on these five points.
The purpose of range management areas and experimental forests includes the
development of appropriate management schemes for sustained, efficient use of
resources. Core conservation areas have a role in this kind of activity- -in the
protection of important gene pools, in the protection of natural systems for comparison
with managed ones, and the like.
Some biosphere reserves have been set up on the model of the regional biome,
ecosystem, or landscape. In areas created under this model, national parks fulfill the
role of the core conservation area, with other land uses also present (including private
lands and lands with sustained resource extraction). Traditional agricultural landscapes
are thus included in some biosphere reserves. The combination of strict preservation,
resource use, and conservation planning is particularly important in the developing
world.
No park is isolated from its surroundings. Parks affect renewable resources beyond
their boundaries. For example, wildlife hunted beyond the park boundary may migrate
regularly across that boundary. Hunting affects population characteristics observed in
the park and park management influences the hunted populations outside the park.
These influences may ramify through an ecosystem- -different herd sizes of large
herbivores lead to different grazing intensities in plant communities. The park may
also harbor native species that are viewed as pests (e.g., pine bark beetles) in managed
lands outside the park. Parks may be the only area that research can be done on pests
and their hosts (for example, research that demonstrates the existence of genotypes
resistant to the "pest").
Park wildlife populations may move out of the park- but the boundary is not a one- way
door. Air pollution, water quality impacts, and other influences permeate the park
from beyond its boundaries.
133
There is a whole suite of park values that are very much renewable resources: visibility
and other aesthetic values (of economic benefit in tourism) and genetic diversity being
the two most important examples. Genetic diversity is supported by complex
ecosystems that survive only in core conservation areas in terms of minimal human
influence.
These resources are not often thought of as "used" or "renewable." Genetic resources
have been and are being used, as when trees in core conservation areas are used for
seed harvest or cuttings in the development of better genetic strains for forestry.
Genetic resources represent a library which can be drawn on as needed- and thus the
use is both realized and potential. In crop plants, wild relatives may possess genes for
resistance to particular diseases and pests.
Aesthetic resources are used in the sense of the tourism industry. Such resources may
be impacted (as by overuse, air pollution or the encroachment of exotic species) and
may be renewed by proper management.
Core conservation areas are important in the measurement of ongoing environmental
degradation, such as the effects of air pollutant deposition. Such threats also affect
lands beyond park boundaries where resource use is permitted.
Natural ecosystems are complex. For example, a pest organism, like a bark beetle, or a
natural process, like fire, which causes heavy tree mortality, may maintain early
successional patches in the landscape, thereby increasing the quantity and quality of
food items for wildlife. The presence of resistant gene pools to pests may occur in such
protected areas. The study of these relationships benefits our understanding of how to
manage resources that are used beyond the boundaries of the core conservation areas.
Applications: Yellowstone National Park Biosphere Reserve
The concepts noted above apply directly to resource issues in Yellowstone National
Park Biosphere Reserve. Here are examples and discussion points raised at the
workshop:
1. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. As described by R. Barbee, Yellowstone
National Park is surrounded by national forest (U.S. Forest Service) lands. The
park is a core conservation area within a larger landscape type.
The park should continue its efforts to use the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
concept as a vehicle to establish a management/research cooperative with
neighboring land managers.
2. Wildlife population movements. Elk and bear management are two good
examples of problems that depend on the recognition of the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. These animals move in and out of the park.
Population characteristics within the park are affected by hunting outside the
park boundaries. Huntable populations outside the park are affected by park
management.
Park management should use the cooperative forum to describe management
goals for the core conservation area. Cooperative research should be instituted
on the problem of wildlife movements and the effects of various management
actions on population characteristics.
134
3. Lodgepole pine, pests, and fire. Lodgepole pines are affected by bark beetles.
Natural fires are an important ingredient in ecosystem behavior. Fires and
beetles can interact to affect fire intensity.
The park should interpret its management philosophies to the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem community, in terms of the importance of natural
events like beetle outbreaks and fire in this ecosystem. Research should be
undertaken to show the effects of these disturbances on ecosystem stability and
native wildlife populations. The importance of this research to the better
understanding of management of renewable resources outside park boundaries
should be explicitly used in research design.
4. Genetic resources: elk, bison, and lake trout. Park gene pools have been used
for the reestablishment of populations outside the park. The park should make
an effort to interpret this major role to its visitors and land management
neighbors.
Comunication with neighboring land managers, interpretation of the regional
focus (Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem), and joint research into the relationship
of Yellowstone National Park ecosystems to park surroundings were the key
recommendations in these specific areas.
Subgroup Reports
1. Research/Monitoring. Strong research programs are essential. These programs must
be integrated into education and management within the biosphere reserve.
Two kinds of research are important: long-term environmental research (this is unique
to the biosphere reserve mission and to protected core conservation areas in particular)
and management-oriented research (to address specific research questions for better
resource protection or restoration). Both of these are important with relation to
renewable resources.
Long- term environmental research must be interdisciplinary. It must address
ecological questions at a series of temporal ?nd spatial scales.
Research should include both long- term research in control (core conservation) areas
and experimental research. These two should be tightly linked within a biosphere
reserve region.
Research is needed that will directly link preservation and resource utilization aims.
Data management is a key area for biosphere reserves. Data must be available to the
scientific community. It must be archived and organized in a manner that will ensure
survival.
Research should provide a means of assessing the state of health of the biosphere's
natural environment. This was one of the main justifications of the Biosphere Reserve
Program in the first place and is important to renewable resource use as well.
Boundary issues are a key organizing principle. Examples of research questions are
migration routes of wildlife and spread of wildlife diseases. Related to this is the issue
of park size: are populations included within the reserve above the critical population
size needed for population persistence? What is the included species diversity and will
135
it be maintained within the park? All of these questions get at the basic nature of the
relationship of a core conservation area to the larger regional setting.
Another important research area is landscape restoration/habitat rehabilitation.
Research should be carried out on the impacts of management actions within the core
conservation area (e.g., trail maintanence).
2- Education/training. Biosphere reserves do not yet have an impact in terms of
interpretation. They need a strong program of image-building, using specific examples
(gene pools used elsewhere, elk management in Yellowstone National Park). The idea of
regional landscapes and issues needs to be used as an organizing principle.
Biosphere reserves must establish ecological training programs that will be useful to
managers, from the perspective of both resource protection and land use classifications.
3. Public involvement. First, the interest groups must be identified: political
institutions, managers, agencies, users, surrounding landowners, and the groups that
have conflicted with management in the past.
The issues must be clarified and de-mystified. In particular, the economic benefits of
biosphere reserve status must be identified.
A formal arrangement between interest groups and managers must be established- one
that will survive personnel turnover.
4. Resource management. The issue of resource management with regard to renewable
resources depends on the recognition that preservation areas should not dominate the
biosphere reserve concept. Most biosphere reserves therefore need an expanded zone
around them.
The biosphere reserve concept should be used to develop a conservation/preservation
strategy for an entire bio tic province. Exemplary models are needed for the integration
of core conservation areas and renewable resource areas. An important aspect of this
is resource planning for the future.
There is a need to develop data bases in core conservation areas and experimental areas
that relate directly to resource use outside the designated areas.
The biosphere reserve concept is an important vehicle for developing a regional
management concept and for interagency cooperation. Acid rain and grizzly bears are
two examples of regional issues that the biosphere reserve concept should be used to
bring land managers to a common forum.
Summary Recommendations
The biosphere reserve concept should be used to develop meaningful programs in
research, communication, training, and interpretation.
A. Cooperative research should be used to tie core conservation areas to resource
use areas (especially experimental areas) within a regional biosphere land unit.
Such research can be used to demonstrate the additional values of core
conservation areas (beyond the primary function of preservation).
136
B. A general regional conservation/preservation strategy should be used to develop
communciation between managers and scientists from diverse land units within
the biosphere reserve region. A regular meeting should be used to facilitate
this communication.
C. Training programs on ecological science and resource management should be
developed using the core conservation area.
D. Interpretation should stress the national parks as core conservation areas within
larger regional settings. The value of the core conservation area to resource
use issues in a larger sense should be emphasized.
MANAGEMENT OF PROBLEM SPECIES IN BIOSPHERE RESERVES
Michael A. Ruggiero1
Abstract. The disturbance of natural ecosystems by exotic biota or
unnatural levels of native biota presents a major problem to managers
of biosphere reserves. These problems are often environmental,
economic, and social. An integrated approach to management- that
includes monitoring, decision, action, and evaluation components-
geared to specific management objectives can provide solutions.
Keywords: Biosphere reserves, exotic species, integrated pest management.
Biosphere reserves are designated internationally to preserve and protect examples of
the ecosystems of regional biomes for future generations. Batisse (1982) stated that
the primary objectives of biosphere reserves are:
1. To conserve for present and future use the diversity and integrity of biotic
communities of plants and animals within natural and semi- natural ecosystems, and
to safeguard the genetic diversity on which their continuing evolution depends;
2. To provide areas for ecological and environmental research, including baseline
studies, both within and adjacent to such reserves; and
3. To provide facilities for education and training.
Biosphere reserves should contain a core area where the natural features of the biome
are protected and other areas where manipulative research and conservative uses that
are not detrimental to the core area can be applied.
A major threat to the natural evolution of biotic communities in the earth's remaining
natural ecosystems results from the invasion and establishment of species, directly or
indirectly resulting from human activities. These species are referred to as "exotic"
species. Native species may also cause problems if they are managed at unnatural
levels or if natural population controls are missing. Finer distinctions have been made
to include at least a third category of "naturalized" species. These species may not be
native but, because of their persistence and lack of response to control efforts, they are
given special status. Managers in some geographical areas have developed other
categories to correspond to a particular event, e.g., the arrival of Columbus in North
America or Cook in Hawaii. Exotic species that arrived before the event are treated as
"native" and those arriving after the event are treated as "exotic." The major focus of
this paper is on exotic species in general.
Table 1 summarizes information about the occurrence, effects, management, and
research of exotic species in selected U.S. biosphere reserves The exotic plants and
animals listed have been identified by reserve managers as having potential adverse
effects on abiotic and biotic components of native ecosystems.
1 Regional Chief Scientist, National Park Service, Midwest Regional Office, Omaha,
Nebraska
137
138
Table 1. EXOTIC SPECIES PROBLEMS IN SELECTED U.S. BIOSPHERE RESERVES
AFTECTED
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
RESERVE
EXOTIC SPECIES
AREA
PLANNED
RESEARCH
Big Bend NP
Big Thicket NP
Channel Islands NP
tamarisk
1 ivestock
slash pine
Chinese tallow
hogs
plants
black rat
surface
water
core
monitoring,
mechanical
and chemical
treatments
chemical ,
biological
treatments
riparian
habitat
core
monitoring,
roundups,
fencing,
cooperation
none
native flora
core
mechanical
removal
none
native flora
core
monitoring,
mechanical
removal
none
soil,
native flora
core
public
hunting
none
native flora
core
investigate
techniques
feasibility
studies
native fauna core
trapping
none
Everglades NP
plants (ca. 100 spp. )
particularly cajeput,
Brazilian pepper,
Australian pine
native flora core/
buffer
monitoring,
mechanical
and chemical
treatments
treatments
Great Smoky
Mountains NP
plants (ca. 300 spp. )
particularly kudzu
hogs
balsam wooly aphid
native flora core/
buffer
native flora, core/
native fauna, buffer
aesthetics
Fraser fir
core
monitoring,
mechanical
and chemical
treatments
monitoring,
shooting,
exclusion
monitoring,
soap treat-
ments
none
attractants
none
Olympic NP
plants
(279 species)
mountain goat
native flora core
soil, core
native flora
monitoring,
allow natural
succession,
investigate
biological
treatments
monitoring,
live removal,
cooperation
none
population
control
139
Exotic species problems can be classified into four groups (modified from National Park
Service, 1982):
1. Widely distributed species with high potential for damage to native biotic
communities,
2. Locally distributed species with high potential for further spread or damage to
native biotic communities,
3. Species with unknown potential for damage to native biotic communities, and
4. Species with little potential for damage to native biotic communities.
This or similar classifications can be used to establish priorities for addressing the total
exotic species problem for a reserve. The key point is that not all exotic species are
necessarily pests and not all native species are non-pests. Management objectives, such
as the preservation of genetic diversity or the maintenance of natural ecosystems in
biosphere reserves, are key in determining whether or not a particular species is a
managed as a pest. Certain negative effects of exotic species may be more tolerable in
buffer areas of a biosphere reserve than in core areas or vice versa.
The management of exotic species may be important in monetary costs. The cost
related to identifying, monitoring, and removing exotic species can be quite high, but
the costs of followup restoration of native species or removal of successive exotic
species can be even higher. These costs make detailed planning and feasibility studies
from a holistic viewpoint essential.
Exotic species can also cause problems when they disperse from biosphere reserves to
neighboring lands that are managed for different objectives. Immigration of exotic
species from adjacent lands into reserves is an equally important problem. Locally,
managers of biosphere reserves should establish agreements with neighboring
landowners to restrict the movement of exotic species across boundaries. Such
agreements should protect the ecological concerns of the reserve. In the United States,
Federal policies allow the eradication of exotic species when possible. Executive Order
11987 (Carter 1977) restricts executive agencies, under most conditions, from
introducing exotic species into natural ecosystems of the United States or exporting
native U.S. species for introduction into natural ecosystems outside the United States.
Exotic species in biosphere reserves can be managed by a strategy used in managing
pest species in agricultural, urban, and other artificial ecosystems.
This strategy is called integrated pest management (IPM). It is a decision-making
process that uses a systems or holistic approach to pest management. The IPM process
maximizes the use of natural controls while minimizing the use of artificial
treatments. Monitoring is important in predicting when injury to the system is likely so
preventive actions can be taken. These actions may include preventive, mechanical,
cultural, biological, chemical, sociological or other treatments that can be used
individually or in combination. Systematic monitoring of the system is essential in
gauging the effectiveness of the program. The key to an IPM program is to take action
against those target pests approaching intolerable levels (as predicted by monitoring).
The major steps in initiating the IPM approach for exotic species in biosphere reserves
and sample questions to ask at each step are listed below. The questions are by no
means all-inclusive; rather they are pesented as examples of the types of questions that
should be asked.
140
1. Management Objective.
- Does the species negatively affect the diversity and integrity of the natural
ecosystem?
- Must the core area be free of all exotic species?
- Is the buffer area managed for agricultural or other ecosystem- altering
purposes?
- Is the buffer area designed to prevent the dispersal of exotics into the core
area?
2. Monitoring.
- What should be monitored?
- When should monitoring occur?
- Who should perform monitoring tasks?
- What monitoring techniques should be used?
- What are the major exotic species?
- Which exotic species are problems?
- What are the key exotic species to be managed? For example, if feral hogs
are dispersing exotic plants, should the hogs be controlled before the plants?
- Has or will the target species reach intolerable levels?
3. Decision.
- What are management's priorities (e.g., largest threat to resources, greatest
sociological problem, largest personnel requirement, easiest to solve, least
research requirement)?
- What population levels or damage thresholds are acceptable?
- Is eradication of the exotic species population necessary?
- Can the priority of the problem be changed if the existing population levels
of exotic species are changed?
4. Action.
- What types of treatments will be used and how will they be integrated?
- How will treatments affect the protected ecosystems?
- How will treatments affect nontarget, native species?
- If it is impossible to remove the problem species, can the problem be used as
an interpretive tool to teach a lesson?
141
5. Evaluation.
- Are management strategies working?
- Have objectives or priorities changed?
- Is the monitoring paradigm adequate?
- Are action thresholds adequate?
- Are prescribed actions acceptable?
- Should the 1PM process be refined?
- Is more research needed?
The IPM approach to solving exotic species problems may appear to require
considerable planning and information. For example, planning is important when
attempting to manipulate populations within an ecosystem because of the
inter-relationships among populations. Similarly, attempts to manipulate a single
population without adequate information about the rest of the ecosystem can produce
problems more serious than the original problem. Decision makers can use the 1PM
approach to formulate sound management programs based on limited information. New
information revealed by the IPM approach in turn is accomodated by "retiming" or
"fine-tuning" the existing program.
LITERATURE CITED
Batisse, M. 1982. The biosphere reserve: a tool for environmental conservation and
management. Environmental Conservation 9(2): 101- 111.
Carter, J. 1977. Exotic organisms. Executive Order 11987.
National Park Service. 1982. Addendum to natural resources management plan:
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, p. 5.
PROBLEM SPECIES IN
HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK BIOSPHERE RESERVE
David B. Ames^ and Charles P. Stone^
Abstract. Species introduced by man in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
have adversely affected native ecosystems for over 1500 years. Early
introductions by Polynesians were less important than land clearing practices,
but with the arrival of Captain Cook in 1778, deterioration of native systems
accelerated. Feral ungulates, introduced plants, small mammals, exotic birds
and invertebrates, and alien diseases have had devastating impacts on biota
that developed in isolation, often in small population units. At Hawaii
Volcanoes, management and research programs are closely coordinated to
reduce and eliminate feral ungulates and alien plants and to enhance native
biota. Although difficult to obtain in Hawaii's political, economic and social
climate, the Park is increasingly trying to improve interpretation and
community outreach to increase awareness and involve other entities in
preserving Hawaii's natural heritage.
INTRODUCTION
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park includes two of the most active volcanoes in the world,
Mauna Loa and Kilauea. Also included are examples of Hawaiian Islands ecosystems
ranging from sea level to the 13,677 ft. summit of Mauna Loa. The endemic life forms
of the Hawaiian Islands, as with island systems worldwide, are seriously threatened by
introduced, plants and animals.
Within the 220,000 acres (89,000 hectares) of the national park are numerous historic and
prehistoric features relating to human life on the slopes of the volcano over the past
1500 years. The relationships between the volcanoes, people, and the other life forms
have always been complicated. In the past 200 years since the arrival of continental
peoples with their various plants and animals, the situation has grown dramatically worse.
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park is unique in that volcanic research is equal in
importance to the conservation and public use aspects common to other national parks.
It is a primary world center for the study of volcanic hazards and related fields such as
seismology. Catastrophic changes caused by volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and
tsunamis affect native biota.
It is well known that island ecosystems are fragile because they developed in isolation
from few colonizers, and because "adaptive radiation" results in many small populations
vulnerable to disturbance. The Hawaiian Islands are the most isolated island group in the
world (Fig. 1) and are recognized as a worst case situation in terms of vulnerability to
outside influences.
SuperintendentT~and Research Scientist^, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii
National Park, Hawaii
142
143
Figure 1. Location of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park in reference
to the State of Hawaii and the Pacific Basin. The threats and
threatened areas are universal.
144
The animals and plants that did arrive naturally in Hawaii came at a rate of
approximately one new species each forty thousand years. These species then evolved,
creating new species in adapting to the large variety of habitats found in Hawaii. These
range from desert with less than 10 inches of rainfall per year, through dry forest, wet
forest, and alpine life zones.
In approximately 400 A.D., the first Hawaiians arrived and brought with them various
utilitarian plants and animals. Plants, such as coconut, kukui and ti, and animals such as
small Polynesian pigs, dogs, and even rats, quickly became established, especially in
the coastal lowlands below 2000 feet elevation. Numerous species that were already
naturally rare and growing in isolated populations in the lowlands were lost, largely as a
result of land clearing. Archeological and paleontological studies have only recently
brought this to light. Most of the plants and animals the Polynesians brought with them
were from other tropical island systems and did not aggressively invade Hawaii's native
ecosystems.
After 1778 and Captain Cook's rediscovery of the Hawaiian Islands, change was greatly
accelerated. In the past 200 years, 4,600 plants have been introduced into Hawaii from
continental ecosystems. Six hundred have become established and 114 are considered
detrimental to native Hawaiian plant life. Animals such as cattle, goats, domestic pigs,
cats, dogs, mongooses, and rats were also added to Hawaiian ecosystems, which, prior to,
the arrival of the Polynesians, had known no land mammals other than the Hawaiian bat.
Agricultural activities such as cattle ranching and sugar cane and pineapple growing,
resulted in the removal of a large percentage of the remaining lowland and
mid-elevation forest habitat on all major islands. Belts of forest on all the islands were
fragmented by these uses. Forest isolation has had a very detrimental impact on native
forest birds.
THE PROBLEM
Accidental and deliberate introductions of animals and plants have had devastating
impacts that aren't fully understood, even yet. For example, it has been shown that
avian malaria and avian pox, which are relatively new to the Hawaiian Islands, are
transmitted by an introduced mosquito. Many native Hawaiian birds had no immunity
and were quickly reduced to low population levels that were then susceptible to other
impacts, such as further loss of habitat. Most bird species (about 75%) are now extinct,
as a result of numerous detrimental influences, including disease.
Feral goats
The adverse effects of feral animals and alien plants are numerous and interrelated. It
has been known since the establishment of the park in 1916 that goats have a disastrous
impact on the park's natural systems. Feral goats at Hawaii Volcanoes have always been
recognized as one of the worst natural resource problems in any national park. As late
as the 1960's, goat removal was considered an unsolvable problem. However, research
resulted in, and management carried out, a plan of fencing, combined with goat drives
and hunting, that has eliminated the goat as a problem. In 1971, the population was
estimated at 15,000 animals, but there are presently fewer than 20 goats in the park.
Goat management is now a matter of maintaining the boundary fences and applying
periodic hunting pressure on the remaining goats. There are so few animals left that
radio- collared "Judas" goats are used to find the remaining animals so that they can be
eliminated.
145
The effect that the goats had over 200 years was severe. They devastated Hawaiian
plant species, eliminating many and creating barren situations that favored alien plants.
This was especially true in the lowlands and at mid- elevations. With the removal of
feral goats, countless problems involving alien plants have emerged. Aggressive
continental grasses have moved in and created continuous, hazardous fire fuel situations
that previously did not exist. Naturally- caused fires due to lava flows either occurred
infrequently in wet forest normally too wet to burn, or in low dryland areas that were
sparsely populated with native Hawaiian species too widely separated to carry fire over
great distances.
Feral pigs
Feral pigs that occur in the rain forest sections of the park have been considered
uncontrollable until recently, due to the difficult nature of the terrain and the widely
dispersed population of approximately 4000 animals. Recent research as well as ongoing
management shows, however, that once again fencing and a coordinated effort involving
methods such as hunting, trapping, and snaring will be able to reduce or eliminate most
of these highly destructive animals. The impact of pigs comes from rooting in the forest
floor, which eliminates regeneration of native forest species and encourages alien plants
in the disturbed soil. Pigs also eat rare native plants and play a role in providing
breeding sites for mosquitoes that carry the avian malaria that seriously impacts forest
bird species. They knock down and hollow out tree fern stumps to eat the starchy
interior. This leaves stumps in the form of troughs throughout the forest to collect
water in which mosquitoes breed. Standing water is extremely rare in Hawaii due to the
porous nature of the rocks and soils.
Predators
Animals such as the mongoose, brought in to eliminate the rats, are devastating to such
native Hawaiian bird life as the Hawaiian goose or nene. This animal, which probably
resulted from the arrival some forty thousand years ago of a few Canada geese, evolved
into a terrestrial bird without enemies before man's introductions. Mongooses, rats, cats
and dogs, combined with a loss of habitat, have reduced the bird to near extinction. Only
the combined efforts of the State of Hawaii and the national park in raising and releasing
the animal are ensuring its survival. Researchers continue to study limiting factors, but
the remaining habitat may be marginal.
Alien plants
Introduced plants from around the world have become established in Hawaii (Table 1).
Weedy plants are favored over natives on sites disturbed by feral animals, clearings for
roads, agriculture, or other human influences. Species that invade active forests
aggressively are of special concern, and include banana poka, a Passiflora, that climbs
into the canopy and smothers forests; several species of blackberry; grasses including
kikuyugrass, a Pennisetum; and firetree, an import from the Azores that forms
monotypic stands.
THE RESOURCES FOR DEALING WITH PROBLEMS
In 1984, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park had a budget of $2,318,000. Of this, $653,604
was specifically allocated to natural resource management, $157,291 to research, and
$128,300 to interpretation. Of the park's 101 full- and part-time employees, 27 are
employed in natural resource management, 8 in research, and 6 in interpretation. A
146
Table 1.— Derivation and status of Hawaiian flora and fauna and estimated extinction and endangered percentages for native taxa.
Introduced_by
Natural Processes Polynesians Continental Han
Taxa (20,000,000 yrs) (2000 yrs) (200 yrs)
Established Species
Natives Aliens
1400-1700 600
iitiiit§d_Percent_of_Native|
Rare, Threatened,
Extinct or Endangered**
Plants
272
32
4600
Terrestrial
Arthropods
300-400
<100
4000+
6000
2000
Land Hollusks
22-24
2-4
50*
1000
30
Land Birds*
20
1
130
35
45
Land Hawals*
1
3
21
1
IB
11
50
50
42***
50
50+****
75
77
0
100
* Not including ocean birds and laiials and ■igratory birds.
** Based on species listed Federally, candidates for listing, and opinions of experts.
*** Based on "index of rarity for 800 species' (6acjne, personal coiiuni cation).
**** All 41 species of Achatinella (Oahu tree snails) have Federal recognition.
147
portion of the Park's remaining financial and personnel resources is in administrative and
logistic support of these programs. Budgets and personnel are given in Table 2.
Biological research in the park is concentrated in the Hawaii Field Research Center.
Housed in an old Job Corps facility, office and lab space is provided for National Park
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and University of Hawaii
biological researchers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Hawaii Forest Bird Survey
project is headquartered there. It has recently completed a survey of forest bird and
plant life on all major islands. The U.S. Forest Service is operating a quarantine
greenhouse for the study of biological controls for alien plants. This project is a
cooperative effort among the National Park Service, the State of Hawaii, and the U.S.
Forest Service. Park Service research focuses on feral pigs and goats, alien plants,
impacts of geothermal development on forest ecosystems, restoration of the Hawaiian
goose, and interrelationships of alien and exotic species in rain forest ecosystems.
The Research Center includes dormitory facilities for visiting researchers as well as
groups such as university students. It provides a focus for biological research on the Big
Island and the exchange of information among those involved. It also is the site of local
and international conferences and seminars and a place for mainland and international
visitors to stay while conducting research of value to the park.
THE INTERFACING COMMUNITY
The primary zone of influence for the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Biosphere Reserve
is, of course, the Island of Hawaii. Activities bordering the park include cattle ranching,
subdivisions, logging, geothermal power plants, and a military bombing range and training
area. The park, since 1971, has maintained fenced boundaries to exclude feral goats, and
is in the process of fencing its remaining boundaries to exclude feral pigs.
On the Big Island of Hawaii, conservation organizations are small and not politically
powerful. The same small group of individuals belongs to such groups as The Audubon
Society, Sierra Club, etc. Political and community leaders are not usually included
among them. The economy of the Big Island is primarily tourism and agriculture (with
sugar cane and macadamia nuts major crops), and the various support services for a
population of 90,000 people. The cattle industry, truck farmers, flower growers,
fishermen and artists are important. Some people are involved in illegal growing of
marijuana. Unemployment is high (8.9%), and the sugar cane industry is shrinking, as it
has difficulty competing in the world market. Political and community leaders on the
Big Island are united in an effort to improve the economic situation by attracting new
business and providing more jobs. The preservation of the remaining segments of native
forest is not seen as a high priority. As a typical example, a 2,200-acre section of 'ohi'a
forest near the park's east boundary is being clear-cut to provide wood chips for an
electrical generating plant that, prior to September 1984, burned sugar cane waste. The
reason for this change is that the local sugar plantation closed.
The East Rift of the Kilauea Volcano, the upper portion of which is along the park's
boundary, has the highest potential for producing electricity from geothermal energy. It
is conceivable that this area could produce enough power for the entire state if it were
totally and successfully developed. The upper third of this rift zone is adjacent to, and
upwind of, the national park. The park and the local Volcano Community have raised
concerns regarding a proposed 250-megawatt project for the past three years, resulting
in the establishment of stricter controls as well as the elimination of a portion of the
project along the park boundary.
148
Table 2. — Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Fiscal Year 1984
personnel and budget.
Activity
Personnel
Budget
Administration, Maintenance,
and Protection
Interpretation
Resource Management
Research
Subtotal, NPS
CPSU, University of Hawaii
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
60
6
27
8
101*
2
10
2
$ 1,378,740
128,300
653,604
157,291
2,317,935
91,000
623,000
114,000
* The Park has a total allotment of 59.8 FTE . Several positions
shown are part-time or contracted.
149
Whenever possible, exhibits and other interpretive media emphasize the effects of
problem species. Newspaper and magazine articles, ranging from the local paper to
Audubon magazine, tell the story to a broad audience. A new exhibit in front of the
visitor center highlights feral pigs and their management and is attracting much
attention.
The recent designation of the park as a biosphere reserve has had the effect of adding
emphasis to the value of the resources. We use this designation both in interpretive
messages and for additional justification of resource protection.
THE CHALLENGE
Damage from introduced animals and plants is the primary natural resource problem
facing Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. The same could be said for other publicly- and
privately-owned large tracts of land throughout Hawaii. If Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park and the Biosphere Reserve of which it is a part are to continue to preserve natural
processes and species assemblages, a cooperative education, research, and management
effort must be aggressively pursued. Community education and outreach, cooperative
efforts and communication with other agencies and organizations and media, and close
relationships with legislators and other leaders are essential. (We think that the
groundwork for this has been established though such cooperative efforts as the Hawaii
Field Research Center.) We need to increase our efforts to ensure the survival of the
increasingly important examples of unique Hawaiian ecosystems provided in Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park.
The objective of this workshop is to analyze this case study and apply biosphere reserve
concepts in ways that reflect the multiple roles of biosphere reserves in research,
resource management, interpretation and cooperative activities at the local, regional
and worldwide levels.
PROBLEM SPECIES WORKSHOP SUMMARY
David B. Ames .
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
The workshop on Problem Species came up with two primary areas for biosphere reserve
managers to emphasize- education and research.
Educating the public about biosphere reserve concepts as well as resources contained in
core areas is of paramount importance. Teacher workshops to spread the information to
school children are an effective means of reaching a large and growing population.
Interpretation within core areas such as national parks should stress the biosphere
reserve concepts such as the interrelationships among managers of protected areas,
developers, and the public interest and the importance of reserves in furthering
knowledge for the benefit of all. If there are several core areas within a biosphere
system (e.g., state parks and reserves and national parks), the interpretive programs
should be coordinated and linked so that visitors can draw comparisons among all areas.
Interpretation about linked development programs and more intensively used adjacent
lands and zones of cooperation is also worthwhile.
Science conferences based on current research with biosphere reserves formalize and
coordinate an exchange of information. They allow professional scientists, educators,
developers, conservationists, and others to keep up-to-date and have input. Open
exchange during resource management planning meetings also serves this function. The
popular media and legislators need to be informed about resource values. This spreads
the message about resource values and allows decision-makers to make more informed
choices when conflicting land uses are proposed.
Research and resource management activities in biosphere reserves need to emphasize
the ecosystem approach rather than the preservation of individual species. The
boundaries of ecosystems need to be clearly defined and well known. Long-term
monitoring and careful recordkeeping that will be of use in future decisions is
mandatory. Monitoring cycles need to be established, programs funded, and the
responsibility for monitoring clearly defined. Without proper continual baseline
monitoring of vegetation, for example, it is difficult to make decisions about priorities
for controlling feral ungulates.
Some research can be conducted outside core areas that will serve as demonstrations for
state or private action in the future. An example would be feral animal exclosures on
state forest land or on a private ranch that would clearly demonstrate benefits to natural
ecosystems.
Problem species need to be clearly defined as to the exact problems they cause and
control priorities established. Species are sometimes considered problems when they
merely are aliens that may not be important. Control of more significant problem
species should be carefully evaluated in terms of effects of control methods on
ecosystems, long-term commitments of human resources, other priorities, and tolerable
levels of problem species in different situations. Research has a key role here, as does
careful trial and error management. When both can work together, avoiding early
generalizations and widespread untested control programs, and serving to demonstrate
results to others, the biosphere reserve concepts as applied to problem species can be
especially valuable.
150
151
Agencies with different specialists and abilities need to work cooperatively because
funds, expertise, manpower, and time are limited. In Hawaii, the search for biological
control for noxious plants is being carried out by a U.S. Forest Service entomologist in a
National Park Service quarantine facility supported by field research conducted by State
of Hawaii entomologists in foreign countries. This example of cooperative research,
management, and education by those with much to gain, economically or ecologically,
from reducing problem species impacts over large regions is a fine example of biosphere
reserve ideas in practice.
APPENDIX
153
155
February 1985
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
PROGRAMME ON MAN AND THE BIOSPHERE
( M A B )
ACTION PLAN FOR BIOSPHERE RESERVES
Summary
On the basis of the results of the First International Biosphere
Reserve Congress, jointly convened in Minsk in 1983 by Unesco and
UNEP in cooperation with FAO and IUCN, at the invitation of the USSR,
and of consultations with conservation specialists and scientists which
have since taken place, an Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves was
adopted by the International Coordinating Council of the Programme
on Man and the Biosphere at its eighth session (Paris, 3-8 December
1984) and is presented in this document as a programme framework.
This framework identifies a range of actions for consideration by
governments and concerned international organisations in developing
the multiple functions of biosphere reserves within the overall context
of the MAB Programme. Those actions concretely serve the
implementation of the World Conservation Strategy. While a number
of actions are of a permanent nature, the stress is placed on activities
which can be carried out in the period 1985-1989.
In summary, governments and international organisations are invited
to undertake activities which will improve and expand the international
biosphere reserve network, to develop basic knowledge for conserving
ecosystems and biological diversity, and to make biosphere reserves
more effective in linking conservation and development in fulfilling
the broad objectives of MAB.
Although each government has its own priorities, from an
international perspective, there is a minimum set of activities which
should be implemented in each biosphere reserve and for which
international organisations should provide support as appropriate. These
are: baseline inventories of flora and fauna and their uses; monitoring;
preparation of a history of research; establishment of research facilities
and research programmes; establishment of training and education
programmes; and preparation of a management plan which addresses
biosphere reserve functions. The approved Action Plan, together with
an indication of financing requirements, will be submitted in due course
for consideration by the Governing organs of UNEP, Unesco, FAO and
IUCN.
(SC-85/WS/26)
156
INTRODUCTION
1. The Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, launched in 1971, is a
world-wide programme of international scientific cooperation dealing with
people-environment interactions in the whole range of bioclimatic and
geographic situations of the biosphere - from polar to tropical zones,
from islands and coastal areas to high mountain regions, from sparsely
populated regions to dense human settlements. Research under the MAB
Programme is designed to provide the information needed to solve practical
problems of resource management. It also aims to fill the still significant
gaps in the understanding of the structure and function of ecosystems,
and of the impact of different types of human intervention. Key ingredients
in the MAB Programme are the involvement of decision makers and local people
in research projects, training and demonstration in the field and the pooling
of disciplines from the social, biological and physical sciences in
addressing complex environmental problems.
2. The International Coordinating Council which supervises the MAB
Programme, at its first session in 1971, decided that one of the themes
of this programme was to be the 'conservation of natural areas and the
genetic material they contain'. Under this theme was introduced the concept
of the biosphere reserve which was intended to be a series of protected
areas, linked through a coordinated international network, which would
demonstrate the value of conservation and its relationship with development.
The concept was innovative because of this network character and because
it combined nature conservation with scientific research, environmental
monitoring, training, demonstration, environmental education and local
participation .
3. Since the very beginning of the implementation of the concept of
biosphere reserves as representative ecological areas, the international
biosphere reserve network has formed a geographic focus for implementing
the MAB Programme.
4. The first biosphere reserves were designated in 1976. Subsequently,
the network has grown steadily until 1984; at present, it consists of a
total of 243 in 65 countries. In this same period, ccoperation with other
international organizations involved with conservation and sustainable
development has been strengthened, particularly the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and
the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN). Representatives of these four organizations meet together regularly
through the Ecosystem Conservation Group to coordinate action.
5. FAO has a major interest in biosphere reserves because of their
contribution to the in situ conservation of genetic resources, especially
wild crop relatives, forest species, and ancestors and close relatives
of domestic livestock. UNEP is promoting the value of the international
network for conservation in general, and in particular, for environmental
monitoring using comparable methodologies and parameters. IUCN considers
that biosphere reserves constitute a useful concept for regional planning
in which conservation is linked directly with sustainable development,
in line with the World Conservation Strategy.
157
- 3
6. It was therefore in the joint interests of FAO, UNEP, IUCN and Unesco
that the First International Biosphere Reserve Congress was convened in
1983 to review the experience of the past ten years and to establish a
general framework to guide the future development of the biosphere reserve
network.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES
7. The main characteristics of biosphere reserves are:
(a) Biosphere reserves are protected areas of representative terrestrial
and coastal environments which have been internationally recognised
for their value in conservation and in providing the scientific
knowledge, skills and human values to support sustainable development.
(b) Biosphere reserves are united to form a worldwide network which
facilitates sharing of information relevant to the conservation and
management of natural and managed ecosystems.
(c) Each biosphere reserve includes representative examples of natural
or minimally disturbed ecosystems (core areas) within each of the
world's biogeographical provinces; and as many of the following types
of areas as possible:
(i) centres of endemism and of genetic richness or unique natural
features of exceptional scientific interest (which may be part
or all of the core area);
(ii) areas suitable for experimental manipulation to develop, assess
and demonstrate the methods for sustainable development;
(iii) examples of harmonious landscapes resulting from traditional
patterns of land use;
(iv) examples of modified or degraded ecosystems that are suitable
for restoration to natural or near-natural conditions.
Collectively, the various types of above areas provide the framework
for carrying out the scientific and management functions of biosphere
reserves .
(d) Each biosphere reserve should be large enough to be an effective
conservation unit, and have value as a benchmark for measurements
of long-term changes in the biosphere.
(e) Biosphere reserves should provide opportunities for ecological
research, education, demonstration and training;
(f) The "buffer zone" may consist of any one or some combination of (ii)
to (iv) of (c) above, which are areas suitable or used for research
• purposes. In addition, the "buffer zone" may also include a large
158
- 4
area which may be undelineated but where efforts are made to develop
cooperative activities which ensure that uses are managed in a manner
compatible with the conservation and research functions of the other
areas of the reserve cited in (c) above. This multiple-use area may
contain a variety of agricultural activities, settlements and other
uses and may vary in space and time, thus forming an "area of
cooperation" or "zone of influence".
(g) Biosphere reserves must have adequate long-term legislative, regulatory
or institutional protection. Biosphere reserves may coincide with,
or incorporate, existing or proposed protected areas, such as national
parks or protected research sites. This is because some of these
protected areas are often the best examples of the natural unaltered
landscape or because they constitute suitable areas for carrying
out the various functions of biosphere reserves.
(h) People should be considered as part of a biosphere reserve. People
constitute an essential component of the landscape and their activities
are fundamental for its long-terra conservation and compatible use.
People and their activities are not excluded from a biosphere reserve;
rather they are encouraged to participate in its management and this
ensures a stronger social acceptance of conservation activities.
(i) Normally, there is no need for changes in land holding or regulation
following the designation of a biosphere reserve except where changes
are required to ensure the strict protection of the core area or
of specific research sites.
8. The above characteristics however may give an insufficient impression
of the breadth of the concept. Successful biosphere reserves constitute
models of the harmonious marriage of conservation and development. They
provide visible examples of the application of the World Conservation
Strategy - sustainable development in action.
FUNCTIONS OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES
Conservation as an open system
9. Although it has long been clear that the whole variety of organisms
and ecosystems cannot be safeguarded satisfactorily for ever if their sole
refuges are protected areas of the more conventional types, this is the
only approach that has been applied widely in practice so far. If genetic
conservation is to be successful in weathering natural and man-induced
environmental change, a more open system of conservation is required, in
which areas of undisturbed natural ecosystems can be surrounded by areas
of sympathetic and compatible use. The biosphere reserve provides these
conditions. It should, perhaps, be looked upon less as a 'reserve' than
as an area of ecologically representative landscape in which land-use is
controlled, but may range from complete protection to intensive, yet
sustainable, production. Under certain circumstances these areas need not
even be contiguous but separate from one another ("cluster concept" of
159
- 5
biosphere reserves). This arrangement of graded control allows for a
flexibility of treatment that is necessary if conservation is to be assured
under changing circumstances.
10. Because they contain a substantial proportion of the indigenous flora
and fauna of a biogeographic region, biosphere reserves are important
reservoirs of genetic material. These resources increasingly are finding
application in developing new pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, building
materials, food sources, pest control agents, and other products to improve
human well-being. The genetic resources of biosphere reserves also may
provide genetic material for reestablishing indigenous species in areas
where they have been eradicated, thereby enhancing the stability and
diversity of regional ecosystems. Within particular natural regions,
biosphere reserves are linked to form local and regional networks with
other types of protected areas which safeguard complementary ecosystems
and elements of biological diversity.
11. A unique aspect of biosphere reserves is the conservation, where
practicable, of traditional land use systems, illustrating harmonious
relationships between indigenous populations and the environment. These
systems often reflect centuries of human experience and can provide
information of immense value in improving the productivity and sustainability
of modern land use and management practices. In addition to providing
important sites for scientific study, the inclusion of such areas can help
to foster pride on the part of local populations in their traditions; and
to provide the basis for improving their means of livelihood, through the
judicious use of science and technology, in ways which respect these
traditions .
Research and monitoring function
12. Because of their secure protection, generally large size, and the
inclusion of areas free from significant human impact, biosphere reserves
typically provide ideal sites for monitoring changes in the physical and
biological components of the biosphere. Their protection and scientific
mission make biosphere reserves particularly attractive sites for gathering
scientific information. Scientists can have more confidence than in most
other areas that the integrity of study sites will be respected, and that
collected data will contribute to a growing data bank of increasing
scientific significance. As land use changes and human impacts progressively
decrease the availability of suitable monitoring sites, scientific interest
in biosphere reserves will increase.
13. In most protected areas, research is a secondary function which is
intended to provide information to enable effective response to immediate
resource management problems within the protected areas themselves. In
biosphere reserves, interdisciplinary research programmes involving the
natural and social sciences are encouraged to develop models for sustainable
conservation of the ecosystems of a large natural region. Biosphere reserves
provide sites for coordinated research, including research to determine
requirements for conserving biological diversity, to assess the impacts
of pollution on the structure and functions of ecosystems, to evaluate
the effects of traditional and modern land use practices on ecosystem
processes, and to develop sustainable production systems for degraded areas.
160
14. Additionally, the international network provides a framework for
comparative studies of similar problems in different parts of the world;
for testing, standardizing and transferring new methodologies; and for
coordinating the development of information management systems.
The education and training function
15. Biosphere reserves can serve as important field centres for the
education and training of scientists, resource managers, protected area
administrators, visitors, and local people. The strong emphasis on developing
educational and training programmes within biosphere reserves is probably
unique. The nature of these programmes depends on the particular conditions,
capabilities, and needs of the biosphere reserve and the surrounding region.
However, the following kinds of activities are generally encouraged:
academic and professional training;
environmental education;
demonstration and extension;
training for local people supplemented by the provision of employment
opportunities .
The cooperation function
16. Cooperation not only serves as the master integrator of the other
functions, but also provides the moral force behind the biosphere reserve
concept. Biosphere reserve status can provide a framework for improving
cooperation at the local, regional, and international level. Cooperation
is increasingly regarded as an aspect of good management for all categories
of protected areas. However, biosphere reserves are distinguished from
other categories of protected areas in several ways as follows.
17. First, cooperation has been embodied, specifically and visibly, in
the biosphere reserve concept from its inception. Unlike other protected
areas, it is an essential part of the symbolism, and a key factor in
fostering personal commitment on the part of growing numbers of people.
18. Second, cooperation at the local and regional levels is broadly based,
involving diverse interests and people with different perspectives. Efforts
are directed towards finding practical and sustainable strategies for dealing
with complex and interrelated environmental, land use, and socio-economic
problems affecting a particular biogeographic region. For this reason,
the range of interests involved in planning and implementing the biosphere
reserve concept typically includes biosphere reserve administrators, natural
and social scientists, resource managers, environmental and development
interests, government decision-makers and local people. Communication between
these groups is based on the need to integrate conservation and development
within the biogeographic region, and on the recognition of the value of
a biosphere reserve. Through these cooperative efforts, an area around
the biosphere reserve can eventually be developed, which represents a zone
of influence in which cooperative activities and harmonious land uses can
be implemented. The spatial dimensions of this area expand as more
participants cooperate in building the biosphere reserve. Developing the
network of cooperation for carrying out the mission of the biosphere reserve
is an open-ended process.
161
- 7 -
19. Biosphere reserves can also provide the catalyst for establishing
appropriate mechanisms to marshall the professional capabilities of
government agencies and academic institutions to provide a perspective
on the ecosystem use and management problems of particular regions.
20. Finally, all biosphere reserves are part of the international network,
which provides a framework for communication within and among biogeographic
regions. Cooperation involves the sharing of technology and information,
and the development of coordinated monitoring and research projects, to
provide better information on problems of common interest. Biosphere reserves
are particularly suitable for cooperative monitoring of regional and global
pollutants and their effects on natural and managed ecosystems, for
cooperative ecosystem modelling, for assessment and forecasting, and in
comparative assessment of alternative systems for managing renewable
resources. Cooperation may also involve the exchange and training of
specialists to assist in selecting biosphere reserves and developing their
functions .
THE ACTION PLAN
21. There are three main thrusts in the programme framework of the action
plan, all designed to promote and implement the concept of the biosphere
reserve and to make it a more effective agent for sustainable development.
These are: improving and expanding the network; using the network to increase
knowledge; and making biosphere reserves more effective in demonstrating
the value of integrating conservation and development.
Improving and expanding the network
22. One of the principal objectives of the Action Plan is to improve
and expand the world coverage of biosphere reserves by including:
representative ecological areas within each of the world's biogeographical
regions, in their natural state and as modified by man to varying degrees,
centres of endemism and of genetic richness; and
areas for carrying the full range of biosphere reserve functions.
Developing basic knowledge for conserving ecosystems and biological diversity
23. A number of actions are concerned with generating and disseminating
useful knowledge, in particular:
using biosphere reserves for background global monitoring of chosen
biological, chemical and physical variables;
carrying out research in basic ecological processes, which can be applied
in management, and in 'conservation science';
monitoring the results and effectiveness of management;
162
assembling traditional knowledge about the use of species and ecosystems;
and ,
spreading all such knowledge by example, publication, wide dissemination
in various other forms, training, exchange of staff and of local people
and by setting up demonstration biosphere reserves to illustrate these
matters to a wide public.
Making biosphere reserves more effective in linking conservation and
development
24. Existing and new biosphere reserves are to be made more effective
in various ways:
ensuring that biosphere reserves meet the criteria and serve the purposes
intended for them, and are not just other sorts of protected areas given
another name;
guaranteeing their protection by legislation and/or management;
linking goals of conservation and development;
improving the effectiveness of management and monitoring the standards
of management;
incorporating in present and future management the traditional skills
of those who live in and around biosphere reserves; and
ensuring the understanding and participation of local people who are
affected by the biosphere reserves.
25. Although it is expected that biosphere reserves will be established
and maintained on a permanent basis, the Action Plan concentrates on
recommendations for action during the period 1985 to 1989, which coincides
with the United Nations Systems Wide Medium-Term Environment Programme
as well as the medium-term plans of several of the sponsoring organisations.
It is designed to be both realistic and practical. Some actions will be
initiated or undertaken by UN organisations (in particular Unesco, UNEP,
FAO, WHO and WMO) and by IUCN. Due consideration will be given to appropriate
requirements of the World Conservation Strategy and other relevant action
plans such as the UN Plan to Combat Desertification. However, most actions
will be a matter for individual countries to implement in accordance with
their own priorities. Success, therefore, will largely depend on the support
of governments - in their domestic policies, in the attitudes they take
in the Governing bodies of international organisations and in asking for
and giving technical assistance.
26. This Action Plan presents a set of recommended actions which
governments and international organisations can implement to better fulfill
the functions of biosphere reserves. Given a reasonable level of funding
and international support, substantial progress can be made in implementing
most of these recommendations by 1989. It is proposed that a meeting be
held to review the progress made and draw up directions for future actions
in 1990.
163
- 9 -
27. Every government establishes its own priorities for implementing
activities in biosphere reserves. These activities all contribute to the
worldwide network to the extent that their results are shared among the
cooperating nations. However, from an international perspective, there
is a minimum set of activities which should be implemented in each biosphere
reserve. These include:
Baseline inventories of species of fauna and flora and their present
and traditional uses (to provide the basis for further research,
monitoring, and information activities).
Establishment of procedure for monitoring key biological parameters.
Preparation of a history of research, which specifies what research
has been carried out and includes a complete bibliography of relevant
publications, as well as an analysis of the relationship with other
ongoing pilot projects, and especially national or international projects
of the MAB Programme.
Establishment of research facilities and a research programme which
outlines the research activities envisaged for the following five years
or so.
Establishment of a training/education programme appropriate for local
needs and conditions.
Preparation of a management plan which specifies the steps to be taken
in developing biosphere reserve functions (this may often involve only
minor alterations to existing management plans).
OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS
OBJECTIVE 1. INTERNATIONAL NETWORK: TO ENHANCE
INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF BIOSPHERE
ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION
THE ROLE OF THE
RESERVES IN GLOBAL
28. In spite of vigorous action during the past decade to make governments
aware of the importance of biosphere reserves and to promote their
establishment, there are still many gaps and deficiencies in the network.
* Many important representative types of ecosystem are still to be included,
especially of coastal and aquatic ecosystems.
* Only a few biosphere reserves established so far cover the full range
of purposes for which biosphere reserves were intended.
Few reserves have been established, which include centres of high
biological diversity and endemism, particularly the centres of
concentration of the wild relatives of economically important plants
and animals.
164
- 10
* The significance of the biosphere reserve concept and the added importance
of having a network are not fully appreciated, so a number of countries
have not yet responded, and others have proposed areas that only partially
profit from the advantages offered by this concept of land use.
29. This is an important objective; because, without a full network,
many of the other objectives can only be partially satisfied. Action on
it is, therefore, crucial. Promotion of the philosophy of the biosphere
reserve and strengthening the network are, of course, tasks that will never
be fully complete; but it should be possible by 1990 to lay firm groundwork
for subsequent continuing action.
Recommended actions
Action 1. In order to provide the basis for a rational selection of
biosphere reserves that would give a complete biogeographical cover, IUCN,
in cooperation with UNEP, should prepare and publish:
* A classification of 'representative ecological areas' on land; and
* A classification of 'representative ecological areas' covering intertidal
and marine habitats in coastal areas.
Action 2. In order to move rapidly and systematically in expanding the
network of biosphere reserves, Dnesco, UNEP, FAO and IDCN should coordinate
their planned activities and develop a phased programme to identify gaps
in ecosystem representation and biosphere reserve functions, and to stimulate
action based on these evaluations. The results of these evaluations should
be widely publicised.
Action 3. Governments should be urged to take such action as appropriate
to fill the identified gaps in ecosystem representation and biosphere reserve
functions. In this they are encouraged to consult and cooperate with the
governments of neighbouring countries to develop a coherent and coordinated
approach. Governments should also develop basic information for refining
and accelerating the selection of biosphere reserves, and should take full
advantage of recent advances in remote-sensing.
Action 4. In order to take the first steps in establishing a series of
biosphere reserves covering the main areas of specific and genetic diversity,
FAO and IUCN should develop a survey of centres of endemism, and of centres
of concentration of wild relatives of economic species, starting with a
pilot project for one biogeographic realm and for a few selected groups
of organisms. Following completion of the pilot project, Unesco, UNEP,
FAO and IUCN should, if appropriate, develop a programme for extending
the project to other parts of the world and to other groups.
Action 5. In order to make the network of aquatic and wetland biosphere
reserves more complete and effective, IUCN should convene a working group
to examine the special managerial, legislative and institutional problems
related to such reserves and develop necessary guidelines for their solution.
Action 6. Unesco should immediately establish a Biosphere Reserve Scientific
Advisory Panel to refine criteria for the selection and management of
biosphere reserves, to evaluate proposals for new biosphere reserves and
to review from time to time the effectiveness of the network.
165
11 -
OBJECTIVE 2. MANAGEMENT: TO IMPROVE AND UPGRADE THE MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING
AND NEW BIOSPHERE RESERVES TO CORRESPOND WITH THEIR MULTI-
PURPOSE OBJECTIVES
30. The long-term security of the biosphere reserve should be assured
through legal instruments, regulations or a management framework directly
applicable to the biosphere reserve or to its separate management units
and land ownerships. In many countries, the legal and administrative
protection normally afforded to national parks, ecological research areas
and other protected areas is adequate for the protection of biosphere
reserves. Where such legal and administrative protection does not exist,
it should be developed especially for the area concerned before it is
nominated as a biosphere reserve.
31. In the land surrounding the core area and the research sites, the
objective is to encourage uses and activities which do not adversely affect
the conservation and research functions of the biosphere reserve. Protection
in these areas may involve laws or regulations to promote land uses which
are compatible with the biosphere reserve. However, the buffer zones and
surrounding areas frequently are multiple-use areas in which compatible
uses depend on voluntary cooperation to protect the biosphere reserve.
A wide range of situations, involving various combinations of legal
instruments, administrative regulations, and voluntary cooperation are
possible depending on the particular ecological, socio-economic, cultural
and institutional context of the reserve. In the particular case of marine
habitats in coastal areas, special provision should be made so that the
adjacent littoral and the catchment basins of its drainage system are
adequately protected.
Recommended actions
Action 7. To ensure an adequate basis for protection and management of
biosphere reserves, governments and responsible administrators are encouraged
to review legal instruments relating to biosphere reserve units and to
pursue revisions where needed.
Action 8. In order to assess the adequacy of existing laws and to help
design new legislation, where appropriate, IUCN in cooperation with FAO
should collect and synthesize information on the managerial requirements
of biosphere reserves, on the legislative measures used by governments
to secure these, and on the institutional arrangements which can be adopted
for the satisfactory administration and management of biosphere reserves.
FAO, IUCN and Unesco should make this information available on request
and prepare and publish guidelines on the subject.
Action 9. To improve the effectiveness of biosphere reserves in carrying
out their multiple functions, MAB National Committees should be asked to
review the management of existing biosphere reserves, develop management
guidelines, and recommend implementing measures to improve the standard
of management appropriate to the legal, administrative, ecological, cultural
and socio-economic conditions affecting the reserves.
166
- 12
Action 10. In order to assist in the task of bringing the management of
biosphere reserves up to the highest possible standard, FAO and IUCN, in
cooperation with UNEP and Unesco, should assist biosphere reserve
administrators to develop model management plans for up to four biosphere
reserves chosen to cover a range of different purposes, and should distribute
these extensively..
Action 11. Unesco, in cooperation with UNEP, FAO and IUCN, should continue
to provide missions to governments to advise on selection, establishment,
legislation and management of national systems of biosphere reserves, and
on the setting up and management of such reserves. Biosphere reserves should
be recommended as an integral part of any National Conservation Strategy.
OBJECTIVE 3. IN SITU CONSERVATION: TO PROMOTE THE CONSERVATION OF KEY
SPECIES AND ECOSYSTEMS IN BIOSPHERE RESERVES
32. There are great differences between species in their requirements
for space and in the size of population that is genetically viable and
would preserve its full genetic potential. These considerations are very
significant in the choice of biosphere reserves (their size, shape and
internal heterogeneity) and in their management; in general the smaller
and more uniform the reserve, the more intervention likely to be required.
Special problems are associated with wide-ranging vertebrates, especially
predatory mammals and birds, and with migratory species. These are fields
in which more research is needed and in which new knowledge and experience
is constantly accumulating.
33. Closer collaboration and a greater exchange of information is needed
between those dealing with the in situ and the ex situ conservation of
the same groups of organisms.
Recommended actions
Action 12. In order to ensure the conservation in situ of key species
and ecosystems, governments should be asked to take specific and urgent
measures in relation to particular species and ecosystems of great importance
or under particular threat.
Action 13. In order to illustrate the principles and methods of in situ
conservation of wild relatives of economically important species, pilot
projects should be initiated by FAO, in cooperation with UNEP, to demonstrate
management techniques allowing their conservation in existing or potential
biosphere reserves.
Action 14. FAO, in cooperation with Unesco, should set up mechanisms for
the exchange of information between those biosphere reserves providing
for the in situ conservation of selected groups of organisms and those
institutions dealing with the ex situ conservation of the same groups.
167
13 -
OBJECTIVE 4. RESEARCH: TO PROMOTE COORDINATED RESEARCH PROJECTS ON
CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND ECOLOGY WITHIN BIOSPHERE RESERVES
34. The development of the research function of biosphere reserves commands
the highest priority. Biosphere reserves, provide securely protected sites
for carrying out long-term basic and applied research programmes to develop
the scientific basis for the sustainable use and the long-term conservation
of these natural and managed ecosystems, in conformity with the objectives
of the MAB Programme.
35. The data obtained from long-term research programmes in biosphere
reserves are particularly valuable for the development of models to enable
the prediction of environmental changes and trends, and their possible
effects on human society.
36. Of particular importance is the role of biosphere reserves in providing
an international framework for comparative research, between natural and
managed ecosystems within a given biosphere reserve or between separate
biosphere reserves in the network which either have analogous ecological
characteristics or similar ecological problems. MAB research undertaken
within the biosphere reserve network can be linked, to great mutual
advantage, to other international research programmes.
Recommended actions
Action 15- In order to develop the research potential of the biosphere
reserve network, governments should be encouraged to set up cooperative,
bilateral or multilateral pilot projects involving:
a) basic and applied research;
b) comparative research involving managed and natural ecosystems;
c) comparative research involving biosphere reserves with analogous
ecological characteristics or similar ecological problems;
d) application of new technologies (e.g. remote sensing or modelling)
in such research; and
e) development and expansion of north-south, south-south, and north-north
linkages for research and educational purposes.
Action 16. Unesco should try to marshall resources from other institutions
to assist governments to conduct research in selected biosphere reserves
on the priority research topics identified under the MAB Programme (such
as on tropical mountains, soil biological processes, succession and
regeneration, multipurpose plants, restoration of degraded ecosystems,
etc.) in order to strengthen the cohesiveness of the Programme.
Action 17. Unesco, in cooperation with FAO, WHO and IUCN, should develop
and maintain a register of plant and animal taxa occuring in biosphere
reserves. This register should include basic information on the ecology,
168
- 14
distribution and status of these taxa, paying due attention to those of
potential agricultural or medical interest. In addition, Unesco, in
cooperation with these same organisations, should organise the systematic
collection and storage of information on the uses (traditional and modern)
of these taxa and should build up a data bank and an information service
to synthesize and disseminate this information.
Action 18. Unesco, in cooperation with UNEP, should review the development
of the science relating to the conservation of biological diversity and
should publish a review of the 'state of the art' and recommendations for
action.
Action 19. Unesco should try to marshall the resources from other
institutions to assist governments to conduct research in conservation
science relating to biosphere reserves, with emphasis on studies to guide
the design of protected areas and the management of genetic resources.
Action 20. In order to show how development may be based on local knowledge,
Unesco, in cooperation with UNEP, should assist governments to initiate
pilot projects to demonstrate how knowledge of traditional uses may be
combined with modern scientific work to allow rational, sustainable use
of local resources.
Action 21. In order to promote the restoration of degraded ecosystems,
Unesco should encourage governments to support research in this field and
should develop a mechanism for the exchange and dissemination of information
about relevant successful experiences in biosphere reserves.
OBJECTIVE 5. MONITORING: TO DEVELOP MONITORING ACTIVITIES IN BIOSPHERE
RESERVES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE UNDERSTANDING
OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
37. Because of their scientific objectives and protective status, many
biosphere reserves are • of particular value for the long-term monitoring
of global biogeochemical cycles, ecological processes, and the effects
of human use on the biosphere (particularly as sites for monitoring
background levels of pollutants). Fully and properly used, they can make
a great contribution to global monitoring and can provide ground truth
data for remote sensing and other purposes. In this, close collaboration
is needed with UNEP (GEMS programme), WMO (World Climate Programme), FAO
and other organisations.
Recommended actions
Action 22. In order to maximise the contribution of biosphere reserves
to international environmental monitoring programmes, UNEP (GEMS) and Unesco
should encourage governments to make biosphere reserves available for global
environmental monitoring programmes. UNEP in collaboration with FAO, WHO,
WMO, ICSU and other interested organisations should:
169
- 15
a) identify those parameters of global scientific significance that can
be easily and inexpensively monitored on a long-term basis, and design
appropriate monitoring programmes;
b) develop standardised, reliable, and widely applicable methods for
collecting and comparing data and assuring quality control;
c) select biosphere reserves which are suitable for this work and promote
the use of these sites with the governments concerned; and
d) seek support for the monitoring of abiotic and biotic parameters of
different ecosystem components (eg. litter, soil, atmosphere, water,
etc.) in biosphere reserves, including biological indicators of
environmental change.
Action 23. In order to increase its contribution towards the integrated
monitoring of the biosphere, WMO should further develop any methodologies
and instrumentation necessary for the monitoring of the atmospheric component
and initiate collection and analysis of the relevant data. WMO should also,
as far as possible and appropriate, use biosphere reserves for background
monitoring of the atmosphere and for long-term monitoring of climate.
OBJECTIVE 6. REGIONAL PLANNING: TO ENHANCE THE ROLE OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES
IN REGIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
38. Integrated rural development projects which strengthen the functions
of biosphere reserve are a means for ensuring the success of the biosphere
reserve concept. One of the most valuable features of biosphere reserves
is that they offer an excellent way of integrating conservation with
development - by building on the knowledge of indigenous peoples about
the sustainable management of their ecosystems and about the properties
and values, of the plants and animals therein. When this is appropriately
supplemented by modern science and technology, such knowledge should enable
even better use to be made of those ecosystems while preserving their
essential character and to do this in ways that benefit local peoples and
are acceptable to them. Such measures will a1 so serve to safeguard the
primitive cultivars of economic crops. This path of development is especially
suitable in many areas of the developing world but could also be followed
with advantage in some of the less favoured rural areas of developed
countries .
39. This path may take a number of forms, for example:
* increasing the productivity of locally adapted systems of farming, in
ways that retain the richness of the local flora and fauna and the
protective character of the vegetation.
* developing, around core areas that should be strictly protected as genetic
reserves, patterns of more productive yet sustainable land use that
are of benefit to local people and are acceptable to them.
* linking biosphere reserves to major development projects to ensure that
these contain appropriate elements of protection and of the sustainable
use of local ecosystems.
170,
- 16 -
40. Biosphere reserves, by definition and intent, have economic and social
benefits for local people, but also have value in demonstrating sustainable
development tied to conservation in the wider biogeographical region. While
biosphere reserves have those inherent benefits, they need to be publicised.
Biosphere reserves provide a framework demonstrating the economic benefits
which can result from the protection of natural and managed ecosystems.
Recommended actions
Action 24. To demonstrate the value of biosphere reserves in integrated
regional planning, governments should develop existing biosphere reserves
as models of balanced and sustainable development. These models should
be used to demonstrate the economic and social benefits of conservation.
Where biosphere reserves have not yet been established, governments should
set up such areas, and also consider nominating for biosphere reserve
designation successful projects which integrate conservation (involving
a protected area) and rural development, or projects which have such
potential .
Action 25. In order to ensure that large development projects contain
the requisite elements of conservation, the World Bank, and other
international and regional development-financing organisations should ensure
that any development project financed by them should not affect the basic
functions of existing biosphere reserves. These organisations should support
the establishment of biosphere reserves as a compensatory measure to mitigate
the adverse ecological effects of the development project, financed by
them that would affect major ecosystems. They should also consider support
for rural development projects involving biosphere reserves which will
help to develop the full range of biosphere reserve functions.
OBJECTIVE 7. LOCAL PARTICIPATION: TO PROMOTE LOCAL PARTICIPATION IN THE
MANAGEMENT OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES
41. For biosphere reserves to be successful, it is essential that they
be locally acceptable. This is not always easy for a number of reasons.
There may be conflict between the requirements of short-term economic
pursuits and conservation: there may be different local views on land use;
and the local and national interests may diverge. Careful consultation
and planning are necessary, as well as a continual dialogue involving tact,
understanding and imagination.
42. Moreover, the situation is seldom stable. Growing populations, changing
expectations, improved technology or communications, and economic pressures
from outside may change the whole pattern of land use and local perceptions
of priorities. The biosphere reserve should be able to evolve in harmony
with all these changes and enable local populations to adjust to demographic
and economic transitions without environmental deterioration.
171
- 17 -
Recommended actions
Action 26. In order to obtain the commitment of people who live in or
adjacent to biosphere reserves, governments should ensure that these people
are encouraged to participate in planning for the management of the area.
Where possible, they should also participate in the scientific research,
monitoring, and other activities taking place in the reserve. Furthermore,
governments should encourage the setting up of mechanisms for consultation
so that conflicts may be resolved and changing local perceptions may be
reflected in the management of the reserve.
Action 27. Unesco, in cooperation with governments, should develop pilot
projects in biosphere reserves to demonstrate the successful involvement
of local people, and should arrange for the transfer of staff, knowledge
and skills among such projects.
Action 28. Unesco, in cooperation with governments, should collect and
disseminate information about successful arrangements for consultation
and participation. Unesco should in particular encourage studies on the
mechanism of participation of institutions and local people in the
development of biosphere reserve functions under different social, economic
and cultural conditions.
OBJECTIVE 8. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING: TO PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION AND TRAINING RELATED TO BIOSPHERE RESERVES AND
TO USE THE FULL POTENTIAL OF THE RESERVES FOR THESE PURPOSES
43. Biosphere reserves play a valuable role in environmental education
and in the training of specialists and practitioners. They can introduce
local people to the idea that protecting natural areas and sustainable
development are to their benefit. Local people could also be made aware
of the wider national and international significance of the areas in which
they live. Biosphere reserves could also be used much more in educating
various sectors of the public in these same things.
44. The network would also provide ideal conditions for training resource
managers and research workers. Because of the special features of the
network, there are exceptional opportunities for sharing experience of
working in comparable ecosystems and analogous conditions in other parts
of the world, and for developing special relations in international training
between pairs or groups of institutions with shared problems or interests.
Recommended actions
Action 29. Unesco should assist governments to strengthen the environmental
education function of biosphere reserves, and to provide facilities which
will heighten the awareness of local people and visitors on environmental
matters .
Action 30. Unesco should assist governments to include conservation as
a subject in the curricula of training institutions, with particular
172
- 18 -
reference to the role of the biosphere reserve concept and network, and
to use their biosphere reserves for field training of specialists in ecology
and life sciences, as well as of future biosphere reserve managers.
OBJECTIVE 9. INFORMATION: TO USE FULLY THE POTENTIAL OF THE NETWORK
TO GENERATE AND SPREAD KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BIOSPHERE AND TO PROMOTE THE BIOSPHERE
RESERVE CONCEPT THROUGH INFORMATION AND DEMONSTRATION
45. An important purpose of the biosphere reserve network is the generation
and dissemination of knowledge. This concept of an information network,
in particular, distinguishes biosphere reserves from other protected areas.
The full potential of this aspect of the biosphere reserve network should
be developed.
46. It is important that the information from biosphere reserves be
published in scientific literature, in the form of guidelines and handbooks
and be presented as attractive and persuasive materials for various sectors
of the public. Personal contact is also very important. The exchange of
people among biosphere reserves can play a vital role in enabling the sharing
of skills and experience.
Recommended actions
Action 31. Unesco, in cooperation with UNEP and IUCN, should prepare and
distribute attractive brochures and audio-visual material which would explain
the characteristics and functions of biosphere reserve networks to a wide
audience .
Action 32. To develop the biosphere reserve information system, Unesco
should:
a) determine a suitable structure for a decentralised system for collection,
storage, synthesis, evaluation and dissemination of information
associated with biosphere reserves;
b) define the various potential users and beneficiaries of the particular
kinds of information;
c) establish mechanisms that ensure that this information reaches the
intended users.
Action 33. Governments should be asked to contribute to the biosphere
reserve information system by providing the following types of information:
a) publications and audio-visual material relating directly to the biosphere
reserve concept;
b) basic information on the geographical, biological (including species'
lists), and social characteristics of each biosphere reserve;
173
19 -
c) bibliography of scientific literature relating to individual biosphere
reserves ;
d) legislative and administrative provisions for biosphere reserves;
e) the details of management plans;
f) history of relevant research and monitoring.
Action 34. Unesco should use already existing information systems to
disseminate scientific bibliographies and data relating to biosphere
reserves .
Action 35. Unesco should encourage governments to develop model biosphere
reserves which demonstrate to the international scientific community, to
national and local leaders, and to politicians and decision makers the
usefulness and international importance of biosphere reserves for
conservation, science and society.
174
U 00
o c
>4-l ■-!>
U-J 34-1
•H>
C u-i
co ou
S Oco
•o
SI
TJ
0
0)
0
y
a!
en
c
o
<
XS
u
to
=
V
AJ
CU
E
u
0)
w
(0
01
"O
«
c
nj
V
u
0!
V
c
X
•H
a
U
(A
•H
O
t-
•H
0
CO
•H
1-
t-
a-
0
U-l
<u
>
c
■H
(8
Hj
>— I
CO
Oh
—
0
C
OS
0
■H
•s
4J
V
o
B
<
efl
i-
0)
u-
-C
4>
*J
S
(X
w
Z
55
O
=3
CM
W
z
Z
- u
O 3
CJ M
<u -o
c c
3 <D
O
u
CO
c
3
Z
u
3
-Oh z
O W t_>
< Z 3
fc D i-i
c
B
>
o
o
a
u
U)
01
c
=3
o
<
z
o
w
z
3
Z
o
.-< o
u
. (A
O <U
< c
o
<
hi
Oh
W
z
Z
» O
O 3
O P-l
en
<u TJ
C C
s en
01
T3
XI
o
>-.
CL
W
cc rj j:
o cj O.
•h «h w
u- u-j o
CT. IJ J
— • -o c
w hh IB
a. v-
00 0)
00 01
C X
•H Q.
r— * en
!-« O
E
cu
T3
C
01
T3 >
C U
ro 01
V)
01 0)
> u
u 0>
CO P
--4 01
en X
■h a
00 «
01 o
c c
0) (0
E ~-<
O1 4-1
OO CU
CD 3
C
CO w-i
s: o
01
CO
x;
XI —i
CO CU
c/> co
W Oh
x
Q.
co en
c o>
■-> u
E 3
o> en
en co
en o>
■h E
■a
ai
■u >
4-1 CO u
C co
V en — i
E •- »
3 en -h
u cu oo
■u x cu
>< C
en o
- C
c o
O -i
03
00
O Z
Z — '
C
01
E
0)
oo
n
c
0) en
en cu
01 01
u -a
0) -H
X 3
a oo
en
O aj
•H C
X) O
E
3 -J
o oo
■H CO
> c
OJ CO
os E
X ex
co en
c o
o
■H J-l
c
cu
E
CU
OJ OO
CI
en co
C
• T3
en c
*J CO
>
o c
00 o
01 i->
en co
> en
-O -H
CO OO
O CU
■-H P
en X
>
O
■o
c
• c en
o) c
4) o
3 -H
■u XJ
01 3
XI u
01 <-l
oo en
C C
CO -i-l
JZ
u
X
ej
c
o »-
00 it
u -o
3 C
at:
UJ
C/5
z
O
U
H
CO "O
E C
C X
co a.
o o
Q. ej c
W or M
01
oo
to
Oh
CO
3
175
IJ
TO
4J
1
i X
1
1
1
X
X
X
X
X
00
>N
4J
■H
)-
i-l CN
H
CN
(N
CM
1— 1
— 1
^^
— 1
O
•H
hi
o,
M
01
•H
1
u
0
•l-l
o
<
01
oc
u
X
b
>
c
c
»
3
01
•rH
<u
n 00
Q
u
CO
*
a.
a.
0 y
c
B
w
o
u
u
U hH
a
TO
O
c
<
z
z
CA
Jt
C
-f4
•H
tu
3
3
0> -
c
■F4
4J
4-1
Z
c 0
TO
U-i
<B
TO
~
o
»
•*
3 X.
CQ
w
hi
•
0
D
3
0
3
O
D
^ 3
•
l-l
•H
0)
CA
J
J
M
j
J
U
J
CA
"O
C
C
a
U
SB
A
M
.0
(A
A
a. •
4-1
11
TO
o
>
U
u
•o
J
U
0)
V
w 0
0
>
hi
E
00
o
o
B
3
c
3
B
C
~
z 1
zz
0
0
5.
u
u
0 3 3
TO
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
U
3
0
0
ON
oo
ON
I— 1
oo
oo
On
<— t
r^
oo
o>
<— i
SO
00
ON
1— 1
in
oo
ON
<— i
CO
4-1
co
U
01
01
V
>
<
u
s
0
-4
j
j
<
U
4J
— 1
u
1
■4
4
J
TO
0
oi j
3 (
u
I
C
1
5
U
hj
n
J J
^ 4
(A
O
I
i-l
O.
V
i 1
x
0) '
§!
A
0)
4
CO
u
fl <
A
co
U
CA
01
y »■
4
c
4-1
1) <
3
C
>
3
00
u
•r4 (
j
0
c
01
A i
-i
0
TO !
14
c
•r4
hi
E
01
Wi
1> J
3
o
u
!-H
TO
<4- .
01 u
4
0)
E
a>
■4
c
n
TO
£
•H
£ <
3
"O
00
a
x
1
c g
V
C
U
4J
a
c
0
a. o
0. i
-1
o
A
5
■4
0
X
c
CO (
$
0
•»4
1— 1
co «
<u
•H
01 C
0
01
0 1
4-1
c
01
O 3
3 <
0
-
CO <
U
4-1
1
•H
e ••
■4
c
>
•H
<
"3 !
■rf
•H
c <
J
U
4-1 1
CA
TO
0)
co
X!
>s <
n
*> 4
i
T3
O 4
J
CA
TO <
3
01
— <
•0
M
J
-1 4
j
•H J
j
TO
•i-l c
n
4
j
>
a.
^
CO
4-1
H
> -
"0
4-1 1
I
>-
4J :
>N
—t
1- V
4
u
c
CX
o
-1 f
4
0) n
3
O (
A
4-1
01
TO <
1
TO
O 1
a>
^-4
•H
O
0 i
3
u
3 <
3
u
e <
3
A
>4-l <
3
CO
TO
z
-^
■1
■O ••
4
C
c
i-i <
J
0
1
0)
C
CA
>>
TO
k4
H
4-1
C J
3
O
01
0 c
11
>_4
CA
hi
O
a
CO
•H
x
l-
5
j
u
O
•H
14-4
M
0 1
>
4J
(
1]
TO
u
(A
u
C 1
3
> 1
01
OO
|4
c
M
'
•i
-1
4-1
CA
■H (
U
<4-l
1- <
1
hi
01
O
a
3 T
3
01
O
U
"»
3
O
a 4
j
0
hi
!A
4-1 4
-1 (
£
4-1 <
J
01
c
TJ <
a
CA
X
a
0
(
3
J-" ,
j
-1
j
<
J
••~i
1-
C 1
(A
0) C
>0
a
T>
hi
Q.
/I
• i
(A (
0
0)
TO (
a
hi
I- (
CO
U
11 1
j
<4-l 4
01 (
u
u
-0
(
u
O
<
3
0
4-1
0
X
J I
O "
0 ••
■4
a
0
JS 1
3
J_l
01 -
4
»H
TO
u
o
1 (
0
1
U <
i
E
u
01
hi
X
u
a
I-
3
4
<*> ,
a (
A
4-1
U U
^
B
01 T
3
00
X
TO
3 1
X
"
0
O
j:
TO <
3
TO
X. C
— 1
01
a.
a'
A
TO <
(A 1
f-4
4-1
01
>- 01
O- C
9
0)
4-1
CO
r()
u «
4
U
3
01 (
5
•H
■H
CA (
TO U
CA
■0
c
0
1'
1 (
3
CA (
l-l 1
^
a
3
0) (
5
Q. C
O C
«
0
v4
•*4
hi
r
j
4
j
ti -
4
TO
•H (
E
X
p
-1 1
>4
(A
•—1 (
0
01
T3
4
j
>s U
us ••
4
O
C
a. -
■4 <
u
01
0) '
-h :
>
4-1
0)
4-1 C
s
U-l ft
1
4
Z
0.
•f4
01
o
TJ 1
-1
>
M
5
-1
j
TJ
>
TO 1
^
TO
C
l-l 1
■4
■H U-l
«-i (
3
»— 1
O
>
— < j
3 <
a
1-
■ (
x <
u
■H
'l-l
O <
3
4J -H
0 4
j
z
f4
0)
^^
01
A •.
A
01
a '
CO (
A
4-1
J3
Q. 4
j
C C
•r
4
z
01
3
0
>
M (
>0
ca
u i
1- 1
•H
E
a c
0
0) 60
01 (
3
>
—•
>
01
TJ <
u
0)
«- 4
TO (
5
c
O
3 (
D
•O -^
CO <
>
01
TO
c
a 3
2 c
£
hi
IX
3S <
j
hH
O
CO 1
■4
Z
>-l CA
3 1
ex,
0
>
>— 1
3C
(-(
J
CO
O
Of
<
z
ct
0
z
O
<
H
0
►-i
u
>-i
1-4
H
co
z
u
c_>
o U
tO \i
o r
00
ON
O
1— 1
1— 1
0
CSI
CN
UJ
<t
l/N
<
Z OS
H r
H r-
~i
(Nl
(Nl
CN
X.
^
4
CNI
ec
CNI
r
4
V
00
ffl
a.
176
CO
3
u
CO
X
X
X
1
1
1
X
X
*j
W
^
4-1
•r*
U
0
—1 CN
^H
<N
r-l
CM
■^ fN
r^
•h
k.
a.
CO
01
•H
Z
u
CJ
■H
3
4J
r-l
c
01
ft.
OO
U
c
Z
• r.
3
4->
to
*
Im
•
0
o
o
0
O
0
o
0
oi
GO
J
CJ
CJ
u
o
CJ
CO
J
CJ
a
4J
.0
co
CO
CO
CO
CO
4-1 CO
co
o
>
V
<U
01
cu
01
01
>
J
CU
o
O
c
C
c
c
c
o
c
o
CJ 3
3
3
3
3
3
O 3
=>
Ov
oo
ON
■H
00
oo
C31
— 1
r-»
00
ON
I— 1
x
ao
ON
<— i
u-i
oo
0>
*-.
u
•*
k
1
3
0
u
V
>*j <
J
C
C
4
J
>
0
-.
•H
o
c
0
hi
u
CO
J
VM
o
2
UJ
01 -
-1
e j
c
o
— .
C
•H
■.
0
to
X
co
ft
0
CO
o
4->
=
0)
H
•H
0
■H
<u
•r-l
CO
u
01
U (
J
c <
CO •.
3
-i
4-1
O
CO
3
u
<u
E
01
E
u
/I
oo
c
4)
■4
X J
3
c
4-1
4-1
o
-1
CO
U
-.
u
3
TJ
to
CO
t« 1
3
Ui
4-1
01
ft.
01
IM
c
oo
E
iX
c
X
X
E -
-i
to
c
to
•H
3
c
01
a.
c
•i-4
.—-
4
-i
•r.
4-1
(0 <
5
x
u
0
CO
c
to
c
co
c
o
3.
T3 -
H
•r*
r-4
■H
c
o
•-I
/)
to
0
OT
•H
3
3
ft
4-1
3
CO
o
•w
X
;
01
CJ
r-l
X
4-1
3
CO
CJ
k.
•r^
4-1
4-1
U
>
CO
1
3
CO
J
u
■H
4-1
4-1
CO
4
J
kl
CJ
ft.
c <
J
1
ft.
3
U
o
E
o
/)
01
■r*
O
•H I
o
•o
•o
u
■o
E
u
4-1
>!
Ul
E
z
(
0
C -
-1
01
3
<—i
0
0
A
01
o
>«
4J J
2
CO
0
u
01
hi
IM
CU
u
c
c/i^
c
(
j
.-J
■M
a.
c
4-1
Z
0
0> <
0
c
3
CO
c
14-1
•l-l
3
3
01
u
e *
J
o -
-1
4-1
■l-l
cu
X
CO
ll
cu
V (
J
•r-l
c
c
4-1
•a
■H 4
-i
4-1
01
1
> <
U
4-1 U
-1
41
C
•H
3
V
1-
0
CO
X
0
i— i •■
-l
CO (
3
E
O
X
CO
4J
s
■v
a
•H
O (
3
4-1
E
C
CO
•i-l
CO
•i-i
in
■-.
co
C
M
CO
u
> 1
4
c
u
J
o
cu
4-1
V
1.
01
— 1
01
o
3
<u
o
o
C 1
ft.
0)
0
3
u
>
to
>
4-1
>
to
>
a »<
-i
>
•H
co
•H
£
U-l •
■4
•l-l
l-l
>
l-l
CO
u
u
u
™
u
X
J
J
0)
C J
J
>
cu
l-l
cu
•r*
01
4J
01
o
-i
01
■o
r-H (
3
>
■r-l
0
CJ
c
CO
CU
CO
T3
to
c
CO
4-1
(0
— .
c
(0 r
-i
I— 1
ft
z
01
01
CO
01
0)
01
01
30
cu
01
to
CJ
-<
o
0) •
-1
r-l
u
c
u
•o
Ih
CJ
u
CO
~
u
■o
z
O
ft
>
4-1
J
z
c
0
C
CU
4-1
o
IM
o
i-^
c
CO •
-1
1— 1
CU
0)
CJ
0>
CO
01
"O
01
C 4
-I
01
E
to
1—1
1
ft
•H
C 4
-1
CO
,5
X
u
u
u
ll
CU
n
ll
CJ
H
0)
3
■H
o>
4-1
<u
01
V
01
01
a
CU
E
H
01
a.
■^4
<
U r
-4
rM
E
0
>
H
oo x
4-J
X
1*
X
o
X
C E
X
JZ
o
00
ft.
3
U
CO
o>
ft.
1-
c
a.
o
a
CO
a
rM
a.
U 01
V
a.
-H
o
>—i
co
>
U
CO
V
a
cu
co
E
co
a.
t/i
01
co
0) 4J
to
01
-^
O
C
u
o
CO
u
co
z
u
0
O
0
cu
o
>
o
> co
•J
0
>
o
i— i
u c
2
.— 1
■-J J
01
<
4-1
..-4
u
•r-l
z
u
*H
a
•-J
o >>
n
•- •*
01
CJ
H
a 4
-j
u
C/3
X
ft.
X
o
a.
^D
a
X
o o) :
3
Jft
a
V
OS
z
<
o
H
CO
z
ft.
1— 1
H
n
O
-J
<
os
t-H
<
o
O
H
u
=3
ft.
CJ
o o
sO r
CO
a
o
o
z
^--
CM
r^
T
u-i
<
Z -3
f
M c
M
CNI
w
r
^
r
1
r
T
c
"1
r
1 p
~\
r
T
177
MAB'S ORGANIZATION
'• ►» International Coordinating Council for MAB
35 participating MAB nations
Sets MAB objectives and international priorities
Coordinates MAB with United Nations and nongovernmental organizations
I
Advisory Panel oh MAB
Oversees MAB Program
Advises ICC on program directions
I
Advisory Panel on Biosphere Reserves
Oversees biosphere reserve project
Recommends approval of BR nominations
I
MAB Bureau
6 representatives from ICC
Provides MAB program guidance
to Secretariat
UNESCO MAB Secretariat (Paris)
12-member professional staff
MAB administrative support
Endorses/funds international
projects
National Committees for MAB
104 nations have national committees
Sets national policy and priorities
Coordinates agency/institutional participation
Approves biosphere reserve nominations
MAB Project Directorates
Interdisciplinary membership
Plan and implement projects
Recommend nominations of
biosphere reserves (MAB-8)
MAB Secretariat*
Administers MAB budget
Provides information and
coordination
Supports Directorate projects
14 possible subject areas:
MAB-1: Tropical Forests
MAB-2: Deciduous Forests
MAB-3: Grazing Lands
MAB-4: Arid Lands
MAB-5: Coastal and Fresh Water
MAB-6: Mountains and Tundra
MAB-7: Islands
MAB-8: Biosphere Reserves
MAB-9: Pesticides
MAB-10: Engineering Works
MAB-1 1: Urban Ecosystems
MAB-1 2: Demography
MAB-13: Human Perception
of Environmental Quality
MAB-14: Pollution
* In the U. S., the MAB Secretariat, located at the Department of State, administers
MAB through funds and personnel provided by State and other participating Federal
agencies.
178
LANDMARKS IN THE HISTORY OF MAB'S BIOSPHERE RESERVES PROJECT
1972: UNESCO launches Biosphere Reserves Project as part of MAB.
1974: UNESCO publishes biosphere reserve selection guidelines. Nixon- Brezhnev
Summit Communique calls for U.S. and U.S.S.R. to establish biosphere reserves.
Several countries (including U.S.) announce establishment of first biosphere
reserves.
1975: UNESCO publishes world map of biogeogeographic provinces for use in selecting
biosphere reserves. UNESCO issues official designation procedures.
1976: UNESCO officially designates the first biosphere reserves.
1981: UNESCO's "Ecology in Action" conference and exhibit commemorates tenth
anniversary of MAB, and includes review of Biosphere Reserves Project.
1983: First International Congress on Biosphere Reserves (Minsk, Byelorussian,
U. S.S.R.) recommends Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves.
1984: First regional conference on the management of biosphere reserves convened in
the United States. International Coordinating Council approves Action Plan for
Biosphere Reserves and establishes Scientific Advisory Panel on Biosphere
Reserves.
179
STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES
(as of January 1985)
Number of sites: 243
Number of countries: 65
Number of biogeographical provinces represented: *95 ex 193
Largest biosphere reserve: Northeast Greenland National Park (Denmark),
70,000,000 ha.
Smallest biosphere reserve: Miramare Marine Park (Italy), 60 ha.
Largest national networks (number of biosphere reserves):
United States: 41 Bulgaria: 17 U.S.S.R.: 14
United Kingdom: 13 Australia: 12 Iran: 9
Biosphere reserves in developed countries: 157 (65%)
Biosphere reserves in developing countries: 86 (35%)
Participation of administrators in the United States
National Park Service: 22 administrative units
Forest Service: 15 units
State agencies: 6 units
The Nature Conservancy: 3 units
Agricultural Research Service: 3 units
Universities: 3 units
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 1 unit
Miscellaneous: 1 unit
*estimate. Actual figure considering biosphere designations in 1984 has not been
made available by UNESCO.
.30
PROCEDURE FOR DESIGNATION OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES IN THE U.S.
MAB interdisciplinary panel recommends most
qualified sites in a particular natural region.
MAB Project Directorate on Biosphere Reserves reviews
panel report and recommends sites for nomination.
MAB Secretariat (State Department) obtains
written concurrence of site administrator.
MAB Secretariat (acting for U.S. National MAB Committee)
sends nomination to Advisory Panel on Biosphere Reserves.
MAB Advisory Panel recommends approval of nomination by MAB Bureau.
MAB Bureau approves nomination (the site officially
becomes a biosphere reserve at this time).
Director General of UNESCO signs designation certificate.
UNESCO MAB Secretariat (Paris) sends designation certificate
to U.S. MAB Secretariat for transmittal to site administrator.
Site administrator holds dedication ceremony (optional).
181
SOME WAYS MAB CAN ASSIST BIOSPHERE RESERVES
Provide a symbolic and a political framework for improving cooperation at the local,
region and international levels.
Identify opportunities for cooperative activities.
Provide a catalyst, through endorsement and/or limited funding, for activities satisfying
MAB objectives, such as:
— Workshops and conferences to provide perspectives and strategies for dealing
with major domestic/international environmental policy issues.
— Interdisciplinary research involving the natural and social sciences, or
interdisciplinary synthesis of existing information.
— Comparative research involving core and experimental research areas.
— New areas of study for expanding the basis for conserving biosphere reserves
(e.g., genetics of natural populations, design of protected areas, ethnobiology).
— Establishing and maintaining long-term ecological monitoring programs.
— Developing information systems (e.g., MAB Conservation Data Base of regional
and national-level maps in digital format).
— Maintaining professional associations among biosphere reserves in different
countries to encourage coordinated research and management on problems of
common interest.
— Building programs and institutions to foster local and regional cooperation for
better management.
— Developing demonstration and training programs to support the mission of
biosphere reserves.
Provide an aegis for communicating with the public on the role of protected areas in
developing harmonious relationships between people and their environment.
Provide interdisciplinary professional comment on projects having potential adverse
effects on biosphere reserves.
Assist and participate in dedication ceremonies for biosphere reserves.
182
THE IDEAL BIOSPHERE RESERVE
The ideal biosphere reserve conserves all of the representative ecosystems of a
particular natural region. It contains the greatest possible diversity of physical and
biological resources. It carries out a wide range of research, education, training, and
demonstration activities in contiguous or nearby areas. Together, these activities
provide the knowledge and skills needed to conserve biological diversity while enabling
the ecosystems to be managed on a sustainable basis for a wide range of amenities and
commodities.
Area of cooperation (indefinite
boundary )
s
Multiple Use Area ** v
\
(Human settlements, forests and ranqelands, and other uses \
managed to achieve greatest
of the biosphere reserve)
possible harmony with the purpose
183
ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE TO IMPLEMENT THE BIOSPHERE RESERVE CONCEPT:
SOME SUGGESTIONS
Recognition
Recognize it on the entrance sign(s)
Recognize it on the letterhead
Recognize it in news releases and brochures
Display the designation certificate
Display the bronze plaque
Cite it as a keyword for journal articles
Name your research station for the biosphere reserve
Designate a "man and the biosphere" day or week for special biosphere reserve
programs and events
Hold a dedication ceremony
Science
Establish sites for long-term monitoring
"Pair" with another biosphere reserve domestically or internationally
Establish a biosphere reserve research station
Provide temporary lodging for visiting scientists
Prepare a comprehensive history of scientific activities, including a machine-readable
bibliography
Encourage interdisciplinary collaboration (especially involving the natural and social
sciences)
Establish cooperative agreements with regional universities to encourage scientific use
Participate in national and international monitoring networks (e.g., National
Atmospheric Deposition Program, UNEP's Global Environmental Monitoring Systems,
MAB's Northern Science Network)
Adopt standard protocols for monitoring (to ensure consistency, accuracy, and
comparability of data)
Submit a long-term ecological research proposal to the National Science Foundation
Develop a BR library, photo archive, and strategic collections program
Encourage studies on genetic resource conservation
184
Facilitate research through logistical support and cooperative attitude
Publish an annual research newsletter
Public Education
Publish on your biosphere reserve "model" in popular and professional publications (MAB
could establish a BR journal)
Require scientists and resource managers to publish popular articles on BR projects
Establish a multi-institutional regional interpretative center
Develop an outreach program on BR issues, with emphasis on the regional school system
Give seminars on BR in regional universities
Interpret the role of protected areas in addressing regional and global environmental
issues
Interpret relationships between people and environment
Interpret MAB program and multiple roles of BR
Display MAB's "Ecology in Action" exhibit
Display/adapt MAB's biological diversity exhibit
Develop special media to demonstrate the role of your BR in the region
Offer BR slide- tape show, an exhibit, and/or brochures to visitors
Begin or contribute to an environmental column in your local newspaper
Distribute BR brochure
Training
Incorporate BR into agency training program
Develop orientation programs tailored to the interests of special constituencies
Develop a biosphere reserve orientation and training program
Hold regional/international workshop on a key ecosystem management issue
Encourage use of BR for student training
Demonstrate land management methods to local/regional landowners
Implement a BR orientation program for local people
185
Natural Resource Management
Develop cooperative programs/projects for managing selected communities/species
Develop a regional geographic information system
Establish the core area (s) and the area (s) of cooperation (over the years, this may
involve adding sites under different administrators)
Involve local people in setting objectives and planning
Implement programs to reestablish regionally extirpated species
Program and Operations
Hire local people
Establish special performance standards for BR scientists, resource management
specialists, interpreters, and administrators
Identify BR activities in your programs
Adopt consistent "generic" objectives for BR areas
Prepare a BR plan or incorporate BR into normal planning procedure
Allocate funds for MAB activities in BR budget
Establish a line-item for BR activities in agency programs
Encourage private sector support, such as through a student research fellowship for
research on biological diversity
Cooperation
Support staff involvement in collaboration with overseas BR colleagues for short-term
and long-term projects
Establish a regional research/resource management cooperative
Establish a BR coordination group with neighboring landowners
Establish a BR coordination group with native peoples
Reconvene BR administrators and specialists on a regular basis
Implement neighborhood projects to assist in resource management, research, or
maintenance of the BR, while building local understanding and support
186
LIST OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES
LISTS DES RESERVES DE LA BIOSPHERE
Name of Area Biogeographical Area Year
Code ( ha )
ALLEMAGNE, REPOBLIQOE FEDERALS D'
Voir paragraphe Germany, Federal Republic of
ARGENTINA/ ARGENTINE
Reserva de la Biosfera "San Guillermo"
Reserva Natural de Vida Silvestre "Laguna Blanca"
Parque Costero del Sur
AOSTRALIA/AOSTRALIE
The Onnamed Conservation Park of South Australia
Prince Regent River Nature Reserve
Kosciusko National Park
Southwest National Park
Danggali Conservation Park
Fitzgerald River National Park
Oluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park
Croajingolong
Yathong Nature Reserve
Hattah-Kulkyne NP & Murray-Kulkyne Park
Wilson's Promontory National Park
Macquarie Island Nature Reserve
AOSTRIA/AOTRICHE
Neusiedler See-Osterreichischer Teil
Gurgler Kamm
Lobau Reserve
Gossenkollesee
BIELORUSSIE REPOBLIQOE SOCIALISTS SOVIETIQOE
Voir paragraphe Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic
BOLIVIA/BOLIVIE
Reserva Biologica de 011a 011a
Parque Nacional Pilon-Lagas
BOLGARIA/BOLGARIB
Pare national Steneto
Reserve Djendema
Reserve Maritchini ezera
Reserve Parangalitza
Reserve Baevi doupki
Reserve Boatine
Reserve Doupkata
Reserve Koupena
Reserve Bistrichko Branichte
Reserve Tchouprene
Reserve Tsaritchina
Reserve Srebarna
Reserve Mantaritza
Reserve Ouzounbodjak
Reserve Tchervenata stena
8.37.12
981,660
1980
8.36.12
981,620
1982
8.31.11
30,000
1984
6.10.07
2,132,000
1977
6.03.04
633,825
1977
6.06.06
625,525
1977
6.02.02
403,240
1977
6.10.07
253,230
1976
6.04.06
242,727
1977
6.09.07
132,550
1977
6.06.06
101,000
1977
6.13.11
87,698
1977
6.13.11
49,550
1977
6.06.06
49,000
1981
7.04.09
12,785
1977
2.12.05
25,000
1977
2.32.12
1,500
1977
2.32.12
1,000
1977
2.32.12
100
1977
8.36.12
200,000
1977
8.06.01
100,000
1977
2.33.12
1,865
1977
2.33.12
1,775
1977
2.33.12
1,510
1977
2.33.12
1,509
1977
2.33.12
1,449
1977
2.33.12
1,228
1977
2.33.12
1,210
1977
2.33.12
962
1977
2.33.12
943
1977
2.33.12
936
1977
2.33.12
616
1977
2.11.05
600
1977
2.33.12
576
1977
2.33.12
575
1977
2.33.12
57]
1977
Reserve Kamtchia
Reserve Alibotouch
BYELORUSSIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC
Berezinsky Reserve
CAMEROON, UNITED REPUBLIC OP
Reserve forestiere et de faune du Dja
Pare national de la Benoue
Pare national de Waza
CANADA
Waterton Lakes National Park
Mont St Hilaire
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
Bamingui-Bangoran Conservation Area
Basse-Lobaye Forest
CHILE/CHILI
Laguna San Rafael NP (including El Guayaneco NP)
Pargue Nacional Lauca
Torres del Paine National Park
Reserva de la Biosfera * Araucarias'
La Campana-Penuelas
Pargue Nacional Juan Fernandez
Pargue Nacional Fray Jorge/Reserva Nacional Las Chinchillas
8.23.06
2.33.12
556
1977
2.33.12
530
1977
2.11.05
76,201
1978
3.02.01
500,000
1981
3.04.04
180,000
1981
3.04.04
170,000
1979
1.19.12
52,597
1979
1.05.05
5,550
1978
3.04.04
1,622,000
1979
3.02.01
18,200
1977
8.11.02
1,742,000
1979
8.36.12
520,000
1981
8.37.12
163,000
1978
8.22.05
81,000
1983
8.23.06
19,095
1984
5.04.13
18,300
1977
14,074 1977
CHINA/CHINE
Changbai Nature Reserve
Wolung Nature Reserve
Dinghu Nature Reserve
COLOMBIA/COLOMBIE
El Tuparro Nature Reserve
Cinturon Andino Cluster Biosphere Reserve
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (incl. Tayrona NP)
CONGO
Pare national d'Odzala
COSTA RICA
Reserva de la Biosfera de la Amistad
COTE D'lVOIRE
Voir paragraphe Ivory Coast
CUBA
Sierra del Rosario
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Trebon Basin Reserve
Krivoklatsko Reserve
Slovak Karst Reserve
DENMARK/DANEMARK
Northeast Greenland National Park
2.14.05
217,235
1979
2.01.02
207,210
1979
4.06.01
1,200
1979
8.27.10
928,125
1979
8.33.12
855,000
1979
8.17.04
731,250
1979
3.02.01
110,000
1977
8.16.04
500,000
1982
8.39.13
10,000
1984
2.32.12
70,000
1977
2.32.12
62,792
1977
2.11.05
36,100
1977
1.17.09 70,000,000 1977
188
ECUADOR
Archipiilago de Colon (Galapagos)
EGYPT/ EG YPTE
Omayed Experimental Research Area
EQUATEUR
Voir paragraphe Ecuador
ESPAGNE
Voir paragraphe Spain
ETATS-ONIS D AMERIQDE
Voir paragraphe United States of America
8.44.13
2.18.07
766,514 1984
1,000 1981
PRANCE
Reserve de la biosphere du PN des Cevennes
Reserve nationale de Camargue BR
Foret domaniale du Fango
Atoll de Taiaro
GABON
Reserve naturelle integrale d'Ipassa-Makokou
GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
Steckby-Loedderitz Forest Nature Reserve
Vessertal Nature Reserve
GERMANY, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
Bayerischer Wald National Park
GHANA
Bia National Park
GREECE/GRECE
Gorge of Samaria National Park
Mount Olympus National Park
GUINEA/GUIREE
Reserve de la biosphere du Massif du Ziama
Reserve de la biosphere des Monts Nimba
2.09.05
2.17.06
2.17.06
5.04.13
3.02.01
2.11.05
2.11.05
2.09.05
3.01.01
2.17.06
2.17.06
3.01.01
3.01.01
323,000 1984
13,117 1977
6,410 1977
2,000 1977
15,000 1983
2,113
1979
1,384
1979
13,100
1981
7,770
1983
4,840
1981
4,000
1981
116,170
1980
17,130
1980
HONDURAS
Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Hortobagy National Park
Pilis Biosphere Reserve
Kiskunsag Biosphere Reserve
Biosphere Reserve of Aggtelek
Lake Ferto Biosphere Reserve
8.16.04
2.12.05
2.11.05
2.12.05
2.12.05
2.12.05
500,000 1980
52,000 1979
23,000 1980
22,095 1979
19,246 1979
12,542 1979
ILE MAURICE
Voir paragraphe Mauritius
INDONES1A/INDONESIE
Gunung Leuser Reserves
Tanjung Puting Nature Park
4.21.13
4.25.13
946,400
205,000
1981
1977
189
Lore Lindu National Park
Komodo National Park
Siberut Nature Reserve
Cibodas Reserve
IRAN
Touran Protected Area
Kavir National Park
Lake Oromeeh National Park
Golestan National Park
Hara Protected Area
Miankaleh Protected Area
Arjan Protected Area
Arasbaran Protected Area
Geno Protected Area
IRELAND/IRELANDE
Killarney National Park
North Bull Island
ITALY/ITALIE
Foret Domaniale du Circeo
Collemeluccio-Montedimezzo
Miramare Marine Park
IVORY COAST
Pare national de la Comoe
Pare national de la Comoe
Pare national de Tai
JAPAN/ JAPON
Mount Hakusan
Mount Odaigahara
Yakushima Island
Shiga Highland
& Mount Omine
KENYA
Mount Kulal Biosphere Reserve
Mount Kenya Biosphere Reserve
Kiunga Marine National Reserve
Malindi-Watamu Biosphere Reserve
KOREA, REPUBLIC OP
Mount Sorak Biosphere Reserve
MALI
Pare national de la Boucle du Baoule (etc)
MAURITIUS
Macchabee/Bel Ombre Nature Reserve
MEXICO/MEXIQUE
Montes Azules
Reserva de Mapimi
Reserva de la Michilia
NIGERIA
Omo Reserve
4.24.13
131,000
1977
4.23.13
30,000
1977
4.21.13
6,000
1981
4.22.13
1,040
1977
2.24.08
1,000,000
1976
2.24.08
700,000
1976
2.34.12
462,600
1976
2.34.12
125,895
1976
2.20.08
85,686
1976
2.34.12
68,800
1976
2.34.12
65,750
1976
2.34.12
52,000
1976
2.20.08
49,000
1976
2.08.05
8,308
1982
2.08.05
500
1981
2.17.06
3,260
1977
2.32.12
478
1977
2.17.06
60
1979
3.04.04
1,150,000
1983
3.04.04
1,150,000
1983
3.01.01
330,000
1977
2.02.02
48,000
1980
2.02.02
36,000
1980
2.02.02
19,000
1980
2.15.05
13,000
1980
3.14.07
700,000
1978
3.21.12
71,759
1978
3.14.07
60,000
1980
3.14.07
19,600
1979
2.15.05
37,430
1982
3.04.04
771,000
1982
3.25.13
3,594
1977
8.01.01
331,200
1979
1.09.07
100,000
1977
1.21.12
42,000
1977
3.01.01
460
1977
•190
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Northeast Svalbard Nature Reserve
OOGANDA
Voir paragraphe Uganda ■
2.25.09 1,555,000 1976
PAKISTAN
Lalsohanra National Park
4.15.07
31,355 1977
PANAMA
Darien National Park
PERO/PEROD
Reserva del Manu
Reserva de Huascaran
Reserva del Noroeste
8.02.01
575,000 1983
8.05.01 1,881,200 1977
8.37.12 399,239 1977
8.19.04 226,300 1977
PHILIPPINES
Puerto Galera Biosphere Reserve
POLAND/POLOGNE
Slowinski National Park
Bialowieza National Park
Babia Gora National Park
Luknajno Lake Reserve
PORTUGAL
Paul do Boquilobo BR
REPUBLIQUE CENTRAFRICAINE
Voir paragraphe Central African Republic
REPUBLIQUE DE COREE
Voir paragraphe Korea, Republic Of
REPUBLIQUE DEMOCRATIQUE D'ALLEMAGNE
Voir paragraphe German Democratic Republic
REPUBLIQUB-UNIE DU CAMEROON
Voir paragraphe Cameroon, United Republic of
REPUBLIQUE-UNIE DU TANZANIE
Voir paragraphe Tanzania, United Republic of
ROMANI A/ROUMANI E
Retezat National Park
Rosca-Letea Reserve
Pietrosu Mare Nature Reserve
4.26.13
2.16.06
2.11.05
2.29.11
2.11.05
23,525 1977
2.11.05 18,069 1976
2.11.05 5,069 1976
2.32.12 1,728 1976
2.10.05 710 1976
395 1981
20,000 1979
18,145 1979
3,068 1979
ROYAUME-UNI
Voir paragraphe United Kingdom
RWANDA
Pare national des Volcans
SENEGAL
Pare national du Niokolo-Koba
Delta du Sine Saloum
Poret classee de Samba Dia
3.20.12
15,065
1983
3.04.04
913,000
1981
3.04.04
180,000
1980
3.04.04
756
1979
191
SPAIN
Las Sierras de Cazorla y Segura Biosphere Reserve
Reserva de la Biosfera de Donana
Reserva de Ordesa-Vinamala
Reserva de Grazalema
Reserva de la Biosfera de la Mancha Humeda
Reserva de la Biosfera del Urdaibai
Parque Natural del Montseny
Reserva de la Biosfera de las Marismas del Odiel
Reserva de la Biosfera del Canal y los Tiles
SRI LANKA
Sinharaja Forest Reserve
Hurulu Forest Reserve
SUDAN/SOUDAN
Radom National Park
Dinder National Park
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Pare national Suisse
TANZANIA, UNITED REPUBLIC OF
Serengeti NP & Ngorongoro CA
Lake Manyara National Park
2.17.06
190,000
1983
2.17.06
77,260
1980
2.16.06
51,396
1977
2.17.06
32,210
1977
2.17.06
25,000
1980
2.16.06
22,500
1984
2.17.06
17,372
1978
2.17.06
8,728
1983
2.40.13
511
1983
4.02.01
8,900
1978
4.13.04
512
1977
3.05.04
1,250,970
1979
3.13.07
650,000
1979
2.32.12
16,870
1979
3.05.04
2,305,000
1981
3.05.04
32,900
1981
TCHECOSLOVAQOIE
Voir paragraphe Czechoslovakia
THAILAHD/THAILANDE
Mae Sa-Kog Ma Reserve
Sakaerat Environmental Research Station
Hauy Tak Teak Reserve
TDNISIA/TUNISIE
Pare national de Djebel Bou-Hedma
Pare national de l'Ichkeul
Pare national de Djebel Chambi
Pare national des lies Zembra et Zembretta
DKRAIHIAH SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC/UKRAINE
Tchernomorsky State Reserve
Askania-Nova State Reserve
UNITED KINGDOM
Isle of Rhum National Nature Reserve
Moor House-Upper Teesdale Biosphere Reserve
Caerlaverock National Nature Reserve
North Norfolk Coast Biosphere Reserve
Beinn Eighe National Nature Reserve
Silver Flowe-Merrick Kells Biosphere Reserve
Cairnsmore of Fleet National Nature Reserve
Loch Druidibeg National Nature Reserve
Dyfi National Nature Reserve
St Kilda National Nature Reserve
Braunton Burrows National Nature Reserve
Claish Moss National Nature Reserve
Taynish National Nature Reserve
4.10.04
14,200
1977
4.10.04
7,200
1976
4.10.04
4,700
1977
2.28.11
11,625
1977
2.17.06
10,770
1977
2.28.11
6,000
1977
2.17.06
4,030
1977
2.29.11
87,348
1984
2.29.11
33,307
1984
2.31.12
10,560
1976
2.08.05
7,399
1976
2.08.05
5,501
1976
2.08.05
5,497
1976
2.31.12
4,800
1976
2.08.05
3,088
1976
2.08.05
1,922
1976
2.31.12
1,658
1976
2.08.05
1,589
1976
2.08.05
842
1976
2.08.05
596
1976
2.08.05
480
1977
2.08.05
326
1977
192
UGANDA
Queen Elizabeth National Park
3.05.04
220,000 1979
ONION OP SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS/ONION DES REPOBLIQDES SOCIALISTES
SOVIETIQDES
Kronotsky zapovednik
Pechero-Ilychsky zapovednik
Sayano-Shushensky zapovednik
Sikhote-Alin Reserve
Laplandsky zapovednik
Caucasian Reserve
Sokhondinsky zapovednik
Astrakhansky zapovednik
Repetek Reserve
Voronezhsky zapovednik
Sary-Chelek Reserve
Central Forest zapovednik
Priokosko-Terrasny Reserve
Central-Chernozem Reserve
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Noatak Biosphere Reserve
Mojave and Colorado Deserts Biosphere Reserve
Aleutian Islands Biosphere Reserve
Yellowstone National Park
Denali National Park and Biosphere Reserve
Everglades National Park (incl. Ft. Jefferson NM)
South Atlantic Coastal Plain BR
Glacier National Park
Olympic National Park
Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks
Big Bend National Park
Isle Royale National Park
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
Beaver Creek Experimental Watershed
Rocky Mountain National Park
Hawaii Islands Biosphere Reserve
Three Sisters Wilderness
Jornada Experimental Range
Central Gulf Coastal Plain Biosphere Reserve
Big Thicket National Preserve
Desert Experimental Range
The Virginia Coast Reserve
Luquillo Experimental Forest (Caribbean NF)
Fraser Experimental Forest
Channel Islands National Monument
Cascade Head Expt. Forest & Scenic Research Area
San Dimas Experimental Forest
Central Plains Experimental Range (CPER)
Virgin Islands National Park
H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest
California Coast Ranges Biosphere Reserve
The University of Michigan Biological Station
Guanica Commonwealth Forest Reserve
Konza Prairie Research Natural Area
Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest
Coram Experimental Forest (incl. Coram NA)
2.07.05
1,099,000
1984
2.03.03
721,300
1984
2.04.03
389,600
1984
2.14.05
340,200
1978
2.27.09
278,400
1984
2.34.12
263,500
1978
2.04.03
211,000
1984
2.21.08
63,400
1984
2.21.08
34,600
1978
2.11.05
31,053
1984
2.36.12
23,868
1978
2.10.05
21,348
1984
2.10.05
4,945
1978
2.10.05
4,795
1978
1.13.09
3,035,200
1976
1.08.07
1,292,704
1984
1.12.09
1,100,940
1976
1.19.12
898,349
1976
1.03.03
782,000
1976
8.12.04
585,867
1976
1.5/6.05
444,335
1983
1.19.12
410,202
1976
1.02.02
363,379
1976
1.20.12
343,000
1976
1.09.07
283,247
1976
1.22.14
215,740
1980
1.05.05
208,403
1976
1.08.07
133,278
1976
1.08.07
111,300
1976
1.19.12
106,710
1976
5.03.13
104,396
1980
1.20.12
80,900
1976
1.09.07
78,297
1976
1.06.05
72,964
1983
1.06.05
34,217
1981
1.11.08
22,513
1976
1.05.05
13,511
1979
8.40.13
11,340
1976
1.19.12
9,328
1976
1.07.06
7,448
1976
1.02.02
7,051
1976
1.07.06
6,947
1976
1.18.11
6,210
1976
8.41.13
6,127
1976
1.20.12
6,100
1976
1.02.02
5,624
1983
1.18.11
4,048
1979
8.40.13
4,006
1981
1.18.11
3,486
1979
1.05.05
3,076
1976
1.19.12
3,019
1976
193
Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory
San Joaquin Experimental Range
Niwot Ridge Biosphere Reserve
Stanislaus-Tuolumne Experimental Forest
URUGUAY
Banados del Este
YUGOSLAVIA/YUGOSLAVIE
Reserve Ecologique du Bassin de la Riviere Tara
The Velebit Mountain
ZAIRE
Reserve Floristique de Yangambi
Forest Reserve of Luki
Vallee de la Lufira
1.05.05
2,185
1976
1.07.06
1,832
1976
1.19.12
1,200
1979
1.20.12
607
1976
8.32.11
200,000
1976
2.33.12
200,000
1976
2.33.12
150,000
1977
3.02.01
250,000
1976
3.02.01
33,000
1979
3.02.01
14,700
1982
194
o
CO
•ceo
CD o
CO
cu >>
4J U
Q
Q
h CC CO
vC
as
vO
t— i
m
CO
co
on
co
CO
co
10 cu
r~
r»
r-~
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
a) boz
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
fM -H 5
#— (
-h
•— i
•— 1
i— 1
"H
F— 1
■-H
*H
■■H
*— 4
M
1
CO
ai
•H
be u
CO
co
c
CO
c
0)
J=
CO
6
a
as
E
W
CO
c
cu
•H
L>
CO
TO
4-1
(1)
CJ
>-i
CU
<
PC
w
w
>— .-
w
u
w
u
U
C_>
u
CJ)
o
w
c_>
u
CO
o
r-
r^
O
o
o
o
o
oo
o
<•
o
<■
t— i
r^
CM
00
m
00
NO
NO
ON
CO
CM
CM
m
l^»
m
o
CO
in
CO
•t
»
#>
9i
*
*
»
#.
*
0
o
1—t
CO
-tf
i— i
CO
CM
m
t— H
— 1
o
■— 1
00
CO
CO
•— 1
~H
CM
CO CO
•H t-l
CO
c o
•H 4->
e
e co
•o u
< 4-t
CJ
CU
■H
o
m
C C ^N
•H
•H O tl
CJ
>rlH
CO
O bO.-D
P-
t-i CU CO
CO
CO
CU ai O
•o
T3 4=
•H
c
C 4-»
CJ .H iH
CO
CO (-i
•H CO CU
rH
iH O
X -U CL
CO
CO 2
CU CO CO
l-l
M 1
CO CO
c
U O 0)
e
C CO
boo t-i
CO
CO tH
o cu
•H
•H 4-1
oj «o j:
4J
4J 3
MC 3
3
3 cu
o m ^
CU
CU i-H
•H
CO
3
< N/
CO
CO CO
c
CO
l-l
o
c
o
co
c
CO
3
x,
CO
3
•H
c
CO
■H
t-i
CO
Cu
•H
M
O
4J
CO
3
CO
Oh
Z
cu
4-1
CO
4J
CO
1
o
c
CO
CO
P-
•H-
c
c
o
t-l
bo
cu
CU
4-)
u
CO
o
CO
N_^
w
c
c
cu
c
CO
CO
4J
CO
•H
•H
CO
•H
c
c
t-l
c
o
o
cu
o
00
bo
Cu
bC
cu
cu
B
cu
u
u
cu
u
o
o
H
o
CO
4J
CO
cu
4-1
CO
4-1
CO
CO
1 CJ
1
o
C CO
c
CO
CO 0-.
CO
Pu
•H
•H
c c
c
c
O l-i
o
(-1
be CU
bo
cu
CU 4-1
cu
4J
l-i CO
u
CO
O CO
©
CO
w W
S_X
Ed
c cu
c
CU
C
CO 4J
CO
4J
CO
•H CO
•H
CO
•H
C M
c
U
c
o CU
o
CU
o
bo a
bO
a-
bo
cu B
CU
B
CU
>- cu
u
cu
u
O H
o
H
o
c
CO
•H
c
o
bo
cu
l-l
o
cc
c
CO
•H
C
o
bO
CU
h
O
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
u
o
u
o
o
O
CJ
»4-l
O
bo
c
•H
4J
CO
•H
•J
CO
4J
4J
x:
CU
T3
CO
CO
CO
CJ
<4H
C
^-1
CO
T3
CO
CO
V-i
•H
CO
CO
• •
TJ
O
CO
o
o
CO
tH
.H
4J
CO
O
O
T)
O
4-1
CJ>
cu
'
T3
CO
c
.*
cu
O
3
O
tH
•H
CO
iH
l-l
cu
l-i
bO
5
•o
o
CO
CO
C
CO
CU 4J
•H
B
CO
^H
c
T>
CU
3
4-1
■H
C3
•H
Pi -H
s
C
•H
Pm
CO
CO
CU
4-1
Oi
4-1
•o
4-1
c
c
c
c
CO
t-l
c
06
H
Pi
•H
•rt
cu
•H
CU
l-l
CU
l-l
CU O
r-(
•H
CU
iH
o
CO
c
4J
c
Pi
c
B
o
>
o
>
CO
CO
4J
Cu
CO
•H
4J
c
X
E3
CO
Co
C3
■H
M-l
l-l
U-l
l-i CO
•o
c
3
X
c
4J
CO
o
4J
CO
J»i
l-l
4J
•H
cu
•H
cu cu
C
o
CU
w
o
CO
CO
•H
•H
J«!
o
-*
cu
M
cu
■H
tH
CO
iH
CO t-i
CO
•H
^
•H
2
o
4J
4-1
s
M
u
l-l
cu
U
a
c
CO
cu
CO
cu <
rH
4J
^
4J
u
CO
•H
CO
CO
CO
l-l
CO
X
&
CJ>
l-l
u
l-l-
CO
CO
cu
CO
4J
55
C
Pu
cu
Pi
u
p-
w
p-l
Cu h
t-l
z
■>
cu
TJ
z
CU
CO
C3
x.
4J
4-1
c
c
CO
cu
u
cu
M
CU
•H
*o
CO
CU
l-l
CU
cu
0)
•o
CO
l-l
cu
u.
cu t-i
c
CO
bo
U
X
•o
CJ
>
c
o
J«i
•H
4-1
o
4J
•H
4J
o
CU
cu
bc
cu
bC 3
CO
M
3
4J
CO
c
•H
l-i
l-l
o
l-l
•o
CO
2
CO
l-l
CO
o
l-l
J=
c
x.
C 4J
•H
CO
>4-l
•H
t-i
l-l
cu
EH
CU
o
5
CO
cu
4J
4J
•H
4-1
?
o
4J
CO
4-1
CO to
4J
CO
cu
c
cu
cu
PQ
CO
14-1
*o
Cu
•o
CO
iH
CO
CO
CO
"O
ft,
l-l
on
l-l
Pi z
3
tH
OS
»
>
4J
cu
■H
cu
cu
CU
—
l-l
cu
o
o
cu
<
<
CO
cu
CO
CO
3
bO
•H
pa
bO
•H
PQ
l-l
p-l
tH
CO
a-
•-5
o
CL.
Pi
2
z
o
CO
fa
CO
fa
fa
fa kU
pa « H
195
*3
CU
3
3
•H
4->
s
o
m
CO
X
cj
u
CO
CO
CO
CO
CU
4J
CO
<u
CO
*T3
0)
4-1
•H
c
3>
CU
X
CO
CU
>
Si
CU
CO
CU
CU
u
<v
X
a
CO
o
«
<41
o
bO
c
CO
•H
•J
T3CO
CUO
WU
p
COW
CO
CU
bcE
><
•h!=>
CO
cu >-.
O^
CM
CO
1
•H
CU
CO
bO 4->
03
CO
C
X
c
01
a
CO
S
e
52
w
CO
3
0)
■H
Si
CO
CO
4-1
a)
o
Si
CU
<u
EC
1 — 1
CO
CO
-H
Si
c
c
•H
4-1
S
co
t3
u
<c
4-1
CD
o
c
c
/~N
•H
o
a.1
>
•H
rH
o
box
Si
CU
CO
fa
fa
CJ
•H
o
H
rH
•H
CO
ex
X
4-1
cx
&
CO
CO
to
3)
M
0
CU
bOCO
M
O
CU
0)
•a
X
bO
3
5
o
«
N^
CO
CU
>
d
CU
CO
CU
fa
CU
S
CO
55
CO
00
ON
CO
CT>
CO
3 <2
& co
en
00
CT>
CO
m
vO*
CO
fa
1 o
C CO
CO fa
•H
s c
O H
bo CU
CU 4J
u co
O CO
s^ [d
3 CU
c
CO 4J
CO
•H CO
•H
c u
c
O CU
o
bo a
bO
cu 6
CU
u <1>
u
O H
o
oo
CJ\
co
CM
m
-d-
o
CN
CU
4-1
CO
4->
CO
3
CO
•H
c
o
bo
CU
u
o
vO
o>
fa
m
o
CO
fa
cu
4-1
CO
U
OJ /— .
a u
B -H
CU Hi
C
O Ml)
bo cu 4-i
cu n co
Si O CO
o >-^ w
c
CO
•H
(-1
CO
(X
•H
r-l
o
t-t
4-1
CO
3
CO
00
o>
CN1
o
vO
CU
4->
CO
4-1
CO
o
CJ
•H
X
at
m
C 9
to o
•H
r-l
CO
fa
•H
o
M
4J
CO
-3
vO
W
o
rH
CN
VO
CO
CO
CO
CO
Si
bo
Si
O
X
CO
CO
-o
3
CO
rH
CO
CO
CO
Si
o
\o
r-.
ov
c_>
o
>d-
CO
CO
o
•H
a
o
u
4J /-^
X cj
3 -H
co m
I -H
3 cj
C to co
CO -H fa
•H 3
cue
r-l O (1
o m cu
m «h 4->
•H rH CD
iH CO CO
CO CJ fa
CO w
Q O
vO vO
CjN OV
fa
en
co
fa
X
4J
r-l
O
c
co
C
•H
CO
4J
c
3
O
X
>>
rb<J
CJ
fa
o m
rH oo
O -H
CM
co
fa
X
4J
3
O
CO
4-1
CO
CU
u
o
fa
c
r-l
CU
4-1
'to
CO
fa
T3
<:
<
<
fa
hJ
O
<
H
CO
cu
3
3
o
CJ)
o
o
fa
O
CO
S
rZ
•H
4-J
3
rH
O
X
• •
rH
CO
M
cu
CO
CJ
r-l
CO
3
•H
CO
CO
4-1
3
4-1
CO
4-1
3
CU
CO
cu
3
3
4-1
cu
iH
cu
CU
a
CU
cu
o
o
3
CO
fa
B
M
•H
bo
k)
u
•H
4-1
CU
cu
•H
O
Si
3
O
4-)
•H
B
fa
iH
CO
4-1
d
fa
rH
CU
CO
m
CO
3
•H
to
rH
•H
cu
to
O-
fa
bO
o
n
&
r-l
CJ
4-1
o
3
cx
rH
CJ
X
•H
4-1
CU
•H
CO
o
33
X
CO
•H
fa
4-1
fa
4-1
CO
CO
4-1
CX
3
CO
•H
fa
4J
bO
CO
•H
cu
3
CO
X
cu
o
X
3
CO
3
O
*o
CO
rH
3
a
O
CU
fa
CJ
o
o
•H
CO
*o
^
CU
rH
3
o
tH
&
O 4J
S
M
CO
CO
CO
3
3
Si
B
o
CO
o
•H
rH -H
cu
O
-a
m
rH
CO
•H
CO
to
•H
u
S3
cu
CO 3
Q
fa
CO
-o
iH
CO
fa
CO
rH
fa
Si
T3
>-.
to
1
>
35
cu
3
3
cx
rH
CO
CU
r*.
Si
•H
CO
U
3
3
CU
X
to
O
• <!
Si
fa
M
rH
a
EC
o
3
rH
CU
H ^!
O
4-1
cu
CO
X
4-1
Si
cu
CO
cu to
CO
CO
cu
4-1
iH
u
>
rH
rH
3
fa
CO
CO 4J
o
"O
cu
4J cu
A2
4-1
-o
CO
CO
cu
•H
CO
cu
CU
O
4-*
Si CO
M-4
3
fa
CO fa
CJ
CO
CO
CU
CO
Si
5
fa
Si
bo
3
•H
e
CU
o cu
•H
to
cu
CO
CJ
Si
cu
4J
o
4-1
3
§
4->
CO
cu
X u
iH
hJ
&
►-)
CO
o
u
c
rJ
3
CO
CO
u
3
CO O
CO
CO
fa
<
(!)
cu
fa
X
SS
o
o
r-3 fa
CO
o
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
196
cj
03
PL,
PQ
fa
Pu W
0Q H
PQ
•on
0) o
4-> U
a
h KU1
\£>
v£5
y£>
vO
v£>
\o
^
vO
to c w
r-~
r^.
r^
r-.
t^
r^
00
r^
0) M2
on
ON
On
on
ON
on
On
On
CO
,
CU >%
(S .O
o
o
00
on
Q
O
00
ON
Q
ON
o
o
00
ON
ON
CN
1
CO
<D
•H
DO
4-1 CO
CC
C tC
C
CO -G
CC
e a
2
B
fa
u
w
o
w
u
CO
u
w
c_>
a
w
u
u
CO
c
CU
•H
u
CO
CO
4-1
0)
CJ
H
CU
<
EC
o
o
o
CN
CO
CNJ
o
o
00
vO
m
oo oo n
cs m o
r-> o -*
ON
O
O
o
O 00
^H O
«tf CN
o
o
nO
CN
CO
ON
CN
ON
o
ON
CN
oo*
U0
co
CO
00
•H
l-l
to
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
ON
r— 1
c
■H
B
o
■u
CO
£
to
fa
&
C/D
SB
g
Pu
CO
£
g
CO
fa
&
3
-
TD
u
r— 1
<
4J
J=
<^»
C
o
a)
c
4=
J=
#1
CO
u
CJ
CO
4-1
4J
x:
CU
r"N
•— \
J=
•H
CO
c
C
/^N
•H
s
h
4-1
TD
CJ
O
4J
•3
3S
•H
O
CU
•a
o
o
3
CO
•H
•H
l-l
CO
/<-N
>
•H
fH
X
c
CO
c
O
CJ
MH
•4-1
O
C
CO
14-1
o
box
4-1
M
CO
c
CO
•H
•H
c
CO
cu
O
u
0)
«
3
««
Ml
to
CO
CJ
O
CJ
X.
fa
Pi
CJ
O
4->
CO
«0
*
CU
C_>
CO
CO
p
~^
CO
CO
•H
CO
CO
■ C
c
4-1
«H
1
a
a
4-)
4-1
h-3
CO
u
H
iH
cu
•H
•H
CO
fH
CO
0
0
CO
CO
•H
CO
a
«
5
CO
CO
CU
•H
T3
T3
•3
CU
CU
4-1
CO
J=
4J
a
CO
c
1
4-1
4-*
l-l
4-1
CO
c
c
u
l-l
CO
CO
O.
CO
a
DO
•H
CO
c
c
c
o
^
>
M
M
0
O
cu
c
4J
CO
CO
•H
CO
CO
CO
3
3
h
CU
1
1
fa
fa
u
CO
CO
h
o
cu
CO
«0
T3
•H
O
O
SB
C
c
l-i
c
l-l
0
3
4-J
00 u
t-i
H
PQ
CO
T3
£
s
c
U
CO
to
CO
CO
CO
c ■
c
>*s
X.
C/n
o
cu
iH
•H
u
CU
CO
•H
•H
fH
•H
rH
l-l
l-l
CO
0)
T3
.e
C
4J
00
M
►%
>.
V
4-*
l-i
X
•H
•H
3
•H
3
cu
cu
CO
3
-a
oo
C
5*
o
CO
U
O
M
X
4J
CO
l-i
4-1
CO
CO
CO
to
CO
4-1
4-1
bO
J=
ai
o
CO
^^
^
CU
cu
iH
CJ
CJ
CO
CU
CU
l-l
3
3
C
3
c
a
n
•H
•H
4-1
•H
3
J-l
>
fc
O
o
CO
U
•H
O
5
;§
M
E§
M
to
CO
CO
x:
•H
c
PQ
>H
o
w
N— <■
a;
pc:
W
o
CO
c
^^
>^
fa
fa
H
O
E3
SB
cu
cu
H
x.
4-1
-^^
4J
«0
4-)
^
B
.J
fa
o
H
X
O
SB
pc!
P-,
o
M
EC
M
gj
§
c
CO
•H
CO
0)
>
fH
M
4-1
CO
fH
CU
<U
-01
CO
fH
c
(0
M
bO
CO
oo
^
CO
CO
0
4-1
u
C
<v
c
t-i
u
4J
•H
c
CO
CO
pS
CO
fa
CO
Pu
o
M
CO
c
CU
4-1
to
cu
i
fa
fa
0)
.*
U
C
4J
e
fH
SB
«H
iH
iH
In
hi
fH
r-i
rH
to
•H
CO
•H
CO
l-l
CO
CO
cu
CO
CO
to
CO
P-,
CO
cu
l-i
C
CO
CU
c
4-)
■r
Pu
4->
c
4-1
4J
U
CU
••
O
cu
pV
0
c
a
c
o
c
fH
c
0
a
CO
•H
0
X
1-4
cu
co
cu
fH
cu
•H
cu
tO
3
(4U
X
*o
4-1
c
fa
4-1
E
o
>
CO
B
4J
0
c
O
^
w
c
CO
CO
CO
«H
•H
M
C
•H
CO
tH
o
£
h
CU
CO
SB
4-1
CJ
4-1
M
SB
l-l
PQ
CU
o
M
SB
M
•H
CO
4J
CO
fH
•H
fH
■H
0
CU
CO
•H
cu
cu
4J
>. P-
CO
3
CO
CO
c
0
c
0
cu
D.
14-1
cu
4-1
a
CO
a
CO
M
4J
cu
M
iH
CJ
>
£3
M
tH
X
o
»S
CO
X
cu
X
SB
O
?H
CO
1-4
CO
PQ
CO
fa
SB
fa
T3
Ed
Q
CO
T3
c
M
^
•H
M
5>N
bfi
»4-l
CO
»-,
CO
c
CO
^
4-1
CO
CO
l-l
<H
'-
T5 4-1
O
CO
C
o
•H
4J
rH
U
CU
o
CJ
CO
•H
CU
to
CO
CO
l-l CO
fa
•3
■H
i-H
1-1
bO
cu
T-I
4J
•H
•H
cu
•H
fH
Ph
5
Pu
CO CU
CO
4J
cu
CO
0)
u
CO
o
CO
4-)
c
•
M
CO
CO
to
£> U
CU
c
CO
6
c
CO
cu
CO
CO
CU
to
CO
•^
O
»
EC
EC
£> O
fH
p4
•H
CO
cu
0)
>
M
rH
M
j2
3
V
fa-,
to
3 fa
CO
O
-J
SB
o
a
w
ft,
o
o
o
3:
sc
EC
M
>~)
o
CD
Pi
w
H
rJ
Cu W
PQ H
197
tjco
qj o
4-1 U
u
CO CO
co
3 W
CU
bOZ
>^
•H S
CO
Q) >.
o x>
Q
O
vO
NO
-a-
-*
-*
-a-
ON
so
>»
vO
nO
r^.
r^
00
00
00
00
r^
r-.
oo
r-»
r^
on
on
o>
o>
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
On
ON
CN
1
CO
cu
•H
bO
4-1 CO
03
C CO
c
CU X
CO
5 Cu
X
S
w
w
CO
co
w
<o
o
co
co
O
U
u
u
01
3
c
•H
4-1
c
o
CO
oo
ON
x
o
u
CO
X
CO
CO
CO
a>
4-1
CO
4-)
CO
•3
0)
4J
iH
s
&
0)
r3
4J
O)
>
M
01
CO
£
0)
01
a
CO
o
•H
bO
3
•H
4J
CO
CO
a
CU
•H
t-i
CO
CO
4-1
01
o
l-i
CU
<!
as
oo
-3-
O
I -h
CO
CO
•H
(-1
c
o
•H
4-1
6
CO
T3
1-1
<
4J
0)
U
c
c
^-v
•H
o
CU
>
•H
r-l
O
b0.o
u
CU
CO
Pu
ptf
V
•H
O
H
rH
•H
CO
a
X
4J
a
cx
CO
CO
CO
CO
r4
0
0)
bCU
M
o
01
CU
*o
.3
00
c
3
o
CO
v^
■H
pa
0)
>
(-1
cu
CO
cu
e2
U-l
o
cu
s
55
CO
55
CO
m
oo
m
es
CN
csi
On
On
vO
en
oo
cu CO
4-1 p-
co Z
4J
CO
ON
o
vO
#-
NO
CN
CN
CO
z
NO
*4-l 3
o u
o
• MH
> iH
•H rH
3 CO
3> CO
O
O
CN
CO
&U
O
O
CN
m
m
o
0-
CO
CO
CO
C
CO
On
r-«
00
CO
r-»
CN
nO
en
CO
en
CO
PU
2
CO
•H
4-)
1
CJ
CO
3
C
CO
U
o
CO
Pu
a
c
CO
•H
3
3
cu
CO
*
O
P
iH
3
(U
CO
bo
CU
CO
u
rH
c
CO
CO
CO
0)
4->
CJ
4-1
iH
•H
In
u
M
M
CO
■H
•H
CO
•3
•a
•3
O
CO
a
*
4J
4J
c
c
3
Nw'
w
>>
CO
i
s
3
3
3
4-1
13
3
H
H
H
3
0)
a
o
CO
4-1
Wk
CO
u
c
s
c
c
s
X
s
3
3
•H
CO
3
iH
CU
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
3
u
CO
CO
4-1
u
M
(J
(-1
r4
>•>
At
A!
M
O
0)
h
CO
CO
o
o
o
o
o
^
CO
CO
CO
00
a
O
CO
cu
s
c
c
s
c
o
CO
CO
CO
01
6
3
u
u
o
o
o
o
o
o
3
iH
^
l-l
o>
O
CO
o
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
p3
<c
o
H
CO
CO
Pm
4J
CO
0>
(-1
o
(X4
en
4-1
u
cu
CO
<
CO
M
u
CO
<
CO
iH
<
CO
Canyon CA
nter
O
CO
cu
>
M
0)
rH
CO
3
O
•H
4J
1
S
S '
x
cu
Pu
CO
rH
cu
CO
o
-
rH
o
3
CO
0- CJ
cu
CJ
^
M
CO
cu
O
3
01
m
•H
u
CO
4-»
o
4->
•H
O
0) X
Pm
4-J
to
cu
3
•3
CO
4J
•H
a o
CJ
cu
4-1
CO
0)
CO
4-1
CO
4-1
u
rH
u
co 3
V
B
U
CO
2
CO
T3 CO
to
<
rH
3 cu
&
•H
o
S5
>•. CU
3
CO
4J a
l-(
H
o
►*
O CO
O
cu
3
CJ 3
0)
CO
0>
o
bo
CU
01
« CU
•H
J3
4J
O
CO 3
■H
0)
a
CO
cu
rH
4-1
01
4-1
p2
4-»
4J
•H
•H
CO O
u
M
X
u
rH
3
u
3
•
cu
to
3
4-1
X
vH
<3
Ed
»3
u
CO
0)
H
cu
hJ 4J
M
z
MH
&
to
cu
CO
3
o
>
B
B
M
•3
o
z
0.1-H
l-i
iH
o
CO
pp
3
CO
3
a cu
•H
. ^
4-1
^
•H CO
Pm
CO
iH
x.
3
3
3
•H CO
OS
to
•H
00
(-■
CJ
CU 3
M
iH
cu
CO
4-1
O
4=
o
rH CU
Jm!
4-1
3
01
CO
•H
O
CO
3
•H
>
N
CO
z
CO
£
•H O
4-1
CO
CO
»
4-1
Pu
O-
3 iH
N
4J
3
CO
3
0)
o
X
o
4-)
o
. to
&
CO 4-1
C
CO
tr
1->
<
Q
•-)
Pu
3
CO
z
- o
00 CO
o
2
3
o
•H
o
t-\
U Z
1^
^J
X
S3
ss
o
o
m
198
o
CD
Oh
Pm
Pm
CO
4J cj
Q
Q
h It IA
v£>
NO
v£>
vO
co
CO
vO
\D
On
vO
on
v£>
CO C W
r^
r^
f^
r^
00
00
r»
r^
r^
1^
r^
r-
at M Z
on
on
on
On
o\
on
ON
On
On
On
on
On
5h -h 5
.H
•-i
r— t
^H
i— i
i-M
'-,
<— i
^H
•— i
-*
-M
CO
cu >^
CN
1
CO
0)
•H
ho
4-J CO
«
C to
c
cu X
to
e a
SB
S
w
cj
td
W
CJ
u
w
cj
C_)
cj
cj
CO
c
cu
•H
u
CO
to
4J
0)
CJ
(-1
CU
-3
X
I —I
CO CO
•H Im
C O
•H 4->
e co
-a im
< 4J
CU
y
c
c
^-\
■H
o
CU
>
°H
iH
O
bco
Im
CU
CO
P-
fS
O
•H
CJ
r-l
iH
•H
CO
a
£
4J
a.
a.
CD
CO
CO
CO
u
O
a>
bOCJ
M
o
CU
CU
T3
X
be
c
*
o
to
v^
•H
PQ
O
r»
CN
O
o
m
r^«
O
oo
o
-H
On
-H
•*
co
o
•— 1
CM
o
O
sf
CO
-H
«*
i-»
ON
00
o
CM
-H
vO
On
o
•—4
m
CO
■i
»
m
m
»
#>
m
#1
#.
*
»
v£>
vO
^m
CO
00
vO
o
-3-
NO
CO
00
O
sr
CO
00
•— i
ON
-H
CO
CO
*o
c
c
o
•H
CO
V4-I
c
CO
00
CO
CO
CO
CO
Crt
O
bO
CO
CJ
CO
§?
CO
fa
00
p-
£
cu
c
•H
•H
0
cj
o
g
CO
CJh
CO
Cb
•
>
•H
C
•H
CJ
•H
fe
c
£
o
•H
M=
J=
•H
X
to
4-1
4J
4-*
4-1
4-1
4J
•H
J=
c
IM
3
(-1
c
3
T3
4J
CO
o
o
o
CO
O
c
>-i
tH
c
CO
c
i-l
4J
CO
c
M
O
c
4J
<
p
•i
»
<
•>
fk
CO
4-1
1
CO
c
i
x
4J
4-1
4-1
1
X.
1
J=
4-1
CU
CO
4J
*o
c
•H
CO
4-1
CO
CO
T3
CO
CO
4-J
CO
4J
CO
i— ;
I-l
CU
CO
•H
1-1
CO
*o
3
CU
CU
•H
CU
*T3
3
T3
u
CU
CO
>H
3
CU
S
to
•u
c
C
CO
O
u
u
X
u
CO
O
CO
o
h
h
•H
1
i-l
1
4-1
C
CO
CO
>
CO
o
o
1
0
>
CO
>
c
o
4-J
4-)
c
o
c
c
3
•H
•H
CU
Pm
Cu
c
tv
CU
CU
Pm
c
c
CO
Pm
CO
3
O
B
.c
z
■.
CO
z
*
z
n
CU
<3
•H
•H
o
X
M
Im
CU
c
c
•H
C
CU
CU
c
u
"O
c
c
X
O
O
CO
•o
u
u
C
M
CO
TJ
CO
T3
M
M
1-1
u
•H
>>
VH
Uh
M
CO
CU
CU
•H
CU
h
CO
h
CO
CU
X
CU
h
0)
bO
^
^
•H
•H
(-■
o
4-1
4-1
bo
4-1
>-i
u
u
o
4-1
4-J
CO
o
4-1
lM
A!
cj
fH
i— !
0)
CO
CO
CO
Im
CO
CU
CO
CU
CO
CO
u
CO
iH
'CD
•H
CJ
o
CO
CO
•H
CO
CO
CO
•H
CO
•H
CO
•H
CO
CO
o
0)
fe
CO
>
o
Dm
cj
CJ
00
CJ
w
w
>
W
CO
C_3
CO
u
U3
c
kJ
\s
W
^^
Pm
CO
cu
>
u
CU
CO
«s
cu
u
CU
a.
CO
o
bo
c
CO
CU
>
«M
CU
CO
0)
CU
s
CO
55
o
d
<
<
•"5
o
3
Pm
I-l
I-l
«<
H
o
CJ
u
Z
CO
O
X
>
>
S
4J
CU
5
CO
bo
• •
J<2
CU
c
c
*
U
I-l
5
•H
M
(0
o
CO
CO
Pm
U,
iH
Pm
CO
CO
Pm
iH
r-i
CO
c
CO
iH
to
CO
CO
4-1
iH
o
cu
c
CO
cu
Pm
c
4>J
c
CO
•H
c
CO
C
>
o
c
CU
c
4-J
!"H
4-1
4-J
i-l
bO
o
u
r-i
•H
CU
s
o
CO
CO
to
CU
CO
CU
•H
c
•H
OJ
CO
4->
B
■H
t^
CO
c
z
c
cu
T3
-c
o
4-1
CO
c
CO
u
U
c
o
o
6
u
iH
CJ
•H
CO
CU
o
z
•H
CU
CO
CJ
•H
p.
4-1
3
o
•H
■H
4-1
Z
Oi
•H
h
a
CJ
4-J
4-J
B
•H
iH
Pm
S
X
CO
4J
c
CU
X
M
CJ
to
•H
CO
c
o
4-1
CD
4J
CO
•H
a.
PJ
CO
i-i
•H
z
c
S
»
3
iH
CD
MM
CO
*T3
CO
z
CO
X
bO
CO
4-*
:=>
CO
H
CO
I-l
o
c
CO
4-)
03
c
c
Pm
c
CO
4J
1
4J
OJ
pH
CO
o
<v
c
•H
2
CO
T3
Oi
CU
c
CO
c
4-1
>s
CO
t-i
CJ
c
3
CO
3
iH
I-l
C
>
CU
CU
3
OJ
00
4-1
CJ
CO
o
O
CO
cr
1
CO
4-1
CO
i-l
M
S
to
B
•H
•H
«H
M
to
4J
X
B
CO
CO
c
«<
t-i
CU
CO
3
iH
•H
CO
CO
bO
•H
CO
1-t
o
•H
O
CU
CO
bO
C
CO
i-i
i-l
O
c
c
>
^
Q
T>
o
•H
J=
c
CU
c
o
•H
CU
CU
CU
i-l
•H
•H
O
M
3
4-J
4J
•H
Cm
o
£
c
a
CU
>
o
. bO
bO
iH
u
c
c
cr
CO
3
Pm
CJ
CO
X
I-l
•H
•H
~ |M
M
iH
o
CO
CO
cu
z
O
4-J
H
X
c
Pm
•H
■H
CU
Pm
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
H
»
>
>
>*
sO
199
l
o
CO
os
^h
»
3
O
•H
4-1
CO
3
3
O
En
CD
•
CJ
CD
3
CO
CD
3
•H
CJ
^"v
CD
CO
/"^
CD
iH
<u
U
a
iH
t-l
3
•H
CO
/*^v
3 ^
4-1
4-1
3
-3
4-1 t*
rH
iH
O
0)
iH O
3
3
•H
3
3 «H
O
B
4-1
C
U l-i
•H ^
CO
•H
•H CD
P l-i
23
Z
4-)
t-l 4J
oo o
c
00 3
< -H
»
CD
o
<3 H
u
J=
J=
u
■4-1 CD
o
4-J
>«•
y-i CD
o x.
O 4J
s
CO
4-4
iTl
4-J
/-N J-t M
CD
• O
00
4J
CD C
CO
u"s
CXs
C <4-l
h 01 11
CD
h«. b
r- 1
CD O
6
3 e jc
4-1 4J 4-1
M
OS CO
*
4-) 4J
iH l-i
iH
1 00
i-H
u c
CO CD
3 TO 4-4
o a o
CO
4J
m o
sO t-i
J=
a e
•H CD
c
as m
o
CD 4-1
M O 4-1
CD
i—i
t-l
O U
00 3
a
J3
CO
CO
•< • CD
•H
► O
S
CO CD
CO S
4-1 • 4-1
l-i
CD
S u
CO co
iw
• o
03 b
a
. t-i CD
O
s-*- CO
4-i a
X
CD
DO CO
O CD
05
CO
C CD 0)
II
•
t-i Cd
CO
CD •
CD O O
e -h
U
CO
CD
En
iH
CO
•H w
4-1 > •
O
#>
CO
^-l CO
CD
►
h htO
0
c
CD
CO CJ
AJ
lU 4-1
CO CD •
•H
o
.e
a -h
CO
CD C
aco &
os
•H
4J
•H 00
•w
CO CD
CD n-'
4-1
3
oo o
co
s e cd
o
>•>
CO
CD
O rH
X CD
4-1 CD
4-1
cj
>
l-i
iH O
*3
CJ 00
••HO
1-1
C
u
CO
o a
0)
M CO
CO rH tH
CD
CO
CD
a
•H Ed
4-J
CO 3
• *o >
3
>
CO
«
•H
CD CO
&H h
En
u
c
3
B
c
CO £
wrt 11
CD
o
•H
iH t-l
&
CD
5 co
4-1
CO
CJ
CO CD
OS T3
CD
O
c
II
T3
3 4J
0)
3
CJ T3 J«J
o
u
CD
O 1
X
«H CO
•H C l-i
£
o
4-1
•H 00
*J
CO -J
> CO CO
4-1
CO
4-1 3
M
t-l fn
tH
CD
•«
O
CO O
c
3 Mh
CD -C
CO
H
CO
•H
3 hJ
•H
4J O
CO CO iH
CD
3
•H
*3
t-l
iH
•H CO
s
4-1
CO
3
CD U
CO
3 3
ufc C
c
CO
CO
•H
4-1 O
<u
CJ CO
CO O
o
Z
-C
3 <4-l
>
•H CD
CD • -H
B
a
CO
M
t-l
u u
l-i CO 4-J
§
CD
S
•H
CD
0)
bO 3
O • CO
O
.3
CD
CO
t-l 4-1
CO
<! PQ
En 33 Z
u
H-
CO
O -H
CD
4-1
j=
4-1 CO
OS
1 1
1 1 1
1
1
3
CD
0
CD 4-1
CD
en s
os 3
CO CO
C_>
6
CD
4-1 CJ
l-i
co a a,
os
z
CD
•H CD
CD
fn En Z
En
H
00
>s
CO t~i
£
CO
t-i
o
a
C
CO
J= u
CO
• •
CO
•3
cj a
o
CO
B
3
k4
•H
s
O
•
CO 4-1
m
o
4J
u
*3
CD O
•H
3
CD
CD
CO iH
4-1
4-1
CO
CO
4->
CD *H
O
CO
•H
3
•H
00
CO
U
QCi En
00
>
B
3
•H
1 1
c
CD
O
O
•3
•H
h
*3
u
CD
OS
4_>
-o
CD
4-1
*3
En W
CO
.O
t-i
CO
II
CO H
•H
<5
En
a
M hJ
J
-H
CM
en
•it
200
DIRECTORY OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES IN THE UNITED STATES
Aleutian Islands
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge,
Aleutian Islands Unit
P.O. Box 5251
F.P.O.
Seattle, WA 98791
(907) 592-2406 or 2407
Beaver Creek Experimental Watershed
2323 Greenlaw Lane
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
(602) 527-7400 FTS 765-7400
Big Bend National Park
Big Bend National Park, TX 79834
(915) 477-2251
Big Thicket National Preserve
P.O. Box 7408
Beaumont, TX 77706
(713) 839-2691 FTS 527-2691
California Coast Ranges
Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Park Unit,
Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park Unit, and
Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park Unit
c/o Fort Humboldt State Historic Park
3431 Fort Avenue
Eureka, CA 95501
(707) 443-4588
Jackson Demonstration State Forest Unit
P.O. Box 1185
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
(707) 964-5674
Landels-Hill Big Creek Reserve Unit
(University of California)
Big Sur, CA 93920
(408) 667-2543
201
California Coast Ranges (continued)
Northern California Coast Range Preserve Research Natural Area Unit
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 940
555 Leslie Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
(707) 462-3873
Northern California Coast Range Preserve Unit
42101 Wilderness Road
Branscomb, CA 95417
(707) 984-6653
Redwood Experimental Forest Unit
Redwood Science Lab
1700 Bayview Drive
Areata, CA 95521
(707) 822-3691 FTS 450-5318
Redwood National Park Unit
1111 2nd Street
Crescent City, CA 95531
(707) 464-6101
Western Slopes of Cone Peak Unit
Los Padres National Forest
42 Aero Camino
Goleta, CA 93117
(805) 968-1578 FTS 960-7578
Cascade Head Experimental Forest and Scenic Research Area
U.S.D.A., Forest Service
Forestry Science Laboratory
3200 Jefferson Way
Corvallis, OR 97331
(503) 757-4361 ext.4340 FTS 420-4429
Central Gulf Coastal Plain
Lower Apalachicola River Basin Unit
Apalachicola National Estuarine Sanctuary
57 Market Street
Apalachicola, FL 32320
(904) 653-8063
202
Central Plains Experimental Range
U.S.D.A., Agricultural Research Service
Crops Research Laboratory
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(303) 484-8777 FTS 323-5227
Channel Islands National Park
1901 Spinnaker Drive
Ventura, CA 93001
(805) 644-8157
Coram Experimental Forest
Forestry Sciences Laboratory
Drawer G
Missoula, MT 59806
(406) 329-3533 FTS 585-3533
Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory and Experimental Forest
999 Coweeta Lab Road
Otto, NC 28763
(704) 524-2128
Denali National Park
P.O. Box 9
McKinley Park, AK 99755
(907) 683-2294
Desert Experimental Range
Shrub Sciences Laboratory
735 North 500 East
Provo, UT 84601
(801) 377-5717 FTS 584-1014
Everglades National Park
P.O. Box 279
Homestead, FL 33030
(305) 247-6211 FTS 350-4653
Fraser Experimental Forest
U.S.D.A., Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
240 West Prospect Street
Fort Collins, CO 80526
(303) 221-4390, ext.250 FTS 323-1250
203
Glacier National Park
West Glacier, MT 59936
(406) 888-5441 FTS 585-5011
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Gatlinburg, TN 37738
(615) 436-5615 FTS 222-3011
Guanica State Forest
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Department of Natural Resources
Box 5887
Puerta de Tierra, PR 00906
(809) 722-9284
H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest
U.S.D.A., Forest Service
Forestry Science Laboratory
3200 Jefferson Way
Corvallis, OR 97331
(503) 757-4395
Hawaiian Islands
Haleakala National Park Unit
P.O. Box 369
Makawao ,
Maui, HI 96768
(808) 572-9177
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Unit
P.O. Box 52
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, HI 96718
(808) 967-7311
Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest
Box 27
Mirror Lake Road
West Thornton, NH 03284
(603) 726-8902 FTS 834-7011
204
Isle Royale National Park
87 North Ripley Street
Houghton, MI 49931
(906) 482-3310 FTS 226-6000
Jornada Experimental Range
U.S.D.A. , Agricultural Research Service
P.O. Box 3 JER
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
(505) 646-4842 FTS 571-8332
Konza Prairie Research Natural Area
Division of Biology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
(913) 532-6620 or 532-6615
Luquillo Experimental Forest
U.S.D.A., Forest Service
Institute of Tropical Forestry
P.O. Box AQ
Rio Piedras, PR 00928
(809) 763-3939
Mojave and Colorado Deserts
Anza Borrego Desert State Park Unit
P.O. Box 428
Borrego Springs, CA 90024
(714) 767-5311
Death Valley National Monument Unit
Death Valley, CA 92328
(619) 786-2331 FTS 688-2000
Joshua Tree National Monument Unit
74485 National Monument Drive
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
(619) 367-7511
Philip L. Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center Unit
(University of California)
P.O. Box 1738
Palm Desert , CA 92261
(619) 341-3655
205
Niwot Ridge
U.S.D.A., Forest Service
2995 Baseline
Boulder, CO 80303
(303) 444-6001 FTS 320-3437
Noatak
Noatak National Preserve Unit
P.O. Box 287
Kotzebue, AK 99752
(907) 442-3890 FTS 399-0150
Gates of the Arctic National Park Unit
P.O. Box 74680
Fairbanks, AK 99707
(907) 452-5363
Olympic National Park
600 East Park Avenue
Port Angeles, WA 98362
(206) 452-4501 FTS 396-4501
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
Route 1
Box 100
Ajo, AZ 85321
(602) 387-6849
Rocky Mountain National Park
Estes Park, CO 80517
(303) 586-2371
San Dimas Experimental Forest
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Forest Fire Laboratory
4955 Canyon Crest Drive
Riverside, CA 93710
(714) 351-6555 FTS 796-6555
206
San Joaquin Experimental Range
U.S.D.A., Forest Service
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station
2081 East Sierra Avenue
Fresno, CA 93710
(209) 487-5588 FTS 467-5588
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
Three Rivers, CA 93271
(209) 565-3341
South Atlantic Coastal Plain
Congaree Swamp National Monument Unit
P.O. Box 11938
Columbia, SC 29211
(803) 765-5571 FTS 677-5571
Pinelands National Reserve Unit
The Pinelands Commission
P.O. Box 7
New Lisbon, NJ 08064
(609) 894-9432
Stanislaus-Tuolumne Experimental Forest
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station
2400 Washington Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
(916) 246-5225 FTS 450-5455
Three Sisters Wilderness
U.S.D.A., Forest Service
Willamette National Forest
P.O. Box 10607
Eugene, OR 97440
(503) 687-6521 FTS 425-6521
207
University of Michigan Biological Station
Pellston, MI 49769
(616) 539-8406 (June-August)
(313) 763-4461 (September-May; 4053 Natural Sciences Building, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109)
Virgin Islands National Park
P.O. Box 7789
Charlotte Amalie,
St. Thomas USVI 00801
(809) 775-2050
Virginia Coast Reserve
The Nature Conservancy
Brownsville
Nassawadox, VA 23413
(804) 442-3049
Yellowstone National Park
P.O. Box 168
Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190
(307) 344-7381 FTS 585-0372
TOTAL NUMBER OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES (1/85): 41
DATEDUE
DEMCO. INC. 38-2931
I
As the Nation's
Department of the In
our nationally owned
This includes foster
water resources, pro
ing the environment
parks and historical
ment of life through
assesses our energy
assure that their de
al 1 our people. The
bility for American
people who live in i
stration.
principal conse
terior has respo
public lands an
ing the wisest u
tecting our fish
and cultural val
places, and pro
outdoor recreat
and mineral reso
velopment is in
Department also
Indian reservati
sland territorie
rvation agency, the
nsibi 1 i ty for most of
d natural resources,
se of our land and
and wildlife, preserv-
ue of our national
viding for the enjoy-
ion. The Department
urces and works to
the best interests of
has a major responsi-
on communities and for
s under U.S. admini-
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS OFFICE
75 SPRING ST., S.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
INT-417
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11